April 2, 2011

Justice Prosser in majority only 86% of time

It's a meaningful distinction, we are told

So is Justice Roggensack in the majority 86% of the time, Justice Gableman is in the majority 88% of the time, compared with Justice Ziegler, who is only in the majority 91% of the time. Believe it or not, these figures are offered by the mandarins at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel in support of the proposition that Justice Prosser is really not all that often part of the court's hard-right conservative bloc, which consists of, um, Justices Roggensack, Gableman, and Ziegler.

Ha ha come on Journal Communications, Inc., we're not that naïve.
[Kloppenburg] seems likely to join the liberal wing.
*spit take* —— You owe me a new monitor, as the kids say.

eta: The thing is going over like a pork chop at a Jewish wedding.

And rightly so.


Pyrrho said...

The bottom line is that Prosser and Crooks are the two Justices least likely to vote in any particular bloc, and therefore arguably the most independent.

Looking at non-unanimous opinions from last term: Gableman, Ziegler, and Roggensack joined each other between 81 and 89% of the time. Abrahamson and Bradley joined each other 92% of the time.

Prosser joined Roggensack, Ziegler and Gableman 65%, 76%, and 71% of the time. Crooks joined them 67%, 70%, and 67% of the time, respectively. So, if Prosser is part of the conservative bloc, so is Crooks (although Crooks was also more likely to join Abrahamson and Bradley).

illusory tenant said...

You should be writing JS editorials (seriously).

illusory tenant said...

By the way I performed the same analysis for Gableman's first term: the GRZ bloc was in complete agreement something like 97% of the time (it wasn't closer to 100% because each had a recusal or two throughout the term). I'm sure I've mentioned here more than once that Prosser is less reliable a conservative than GRZ, but the JS really botched the presentation. This entire election has been absurd.

Pyrrho said...

Yeah, I completely agree that the way the JS presented it really didn't make any sense. Quite frankly, it was a bizarre endorsement: it was a little too critical of Prosser to be particularly compelling. Then again, the Appleton Post-Crescent's endorsement of Kloppenburg was similarly critical of her.

I just wonder what more absurdity is left in this election in these last few days.

illusory tenant said...

Prosser himself had the best line:

My favorite part is where Prosser deadpans that there are "two pretty hardcore liberals on the court" and "three who are, I think, a little bit more conservative." Still laughing here.

But yeah, there is a totally different perspective when you read the cases, and meet the man. The way he's been portrayed -- with one notable exception, the outburst with the Chief -- is so unfair. But hey, they want to elect judges, this is what you get.

gnarlytrombone said...

The way he's been portrayed...is so unfair.

If only he'd recognized the peril of that that reta...er, petard and blown it at the moon.

Mike said...

If you were on a jury and got something like that from another juror, you'd suspect it was either tampering or mindless rush to judgement. Or maybe they just wanted to get home and couldn't summon the energy to make a convincing argument. What the hell, why bother when you have the votes.