I absolutely have a recollection of [the Chief Justice] saying, 'I may not be done 'til Wednesday.' Now that's the day after the Assembly would have had to vote on this all over again.Immediately upon hearing that, Justice Prosser tells her, "Chief Justice, I have lost confidence in your ability to lead this court." According to Justice Prosser, his three conservative colleagues, Justices Roggensack, Ziegler, and Gableman, had been getting "very, very antsy" at the prospect of not having their order released in time to save the Assembly Republicans the trouble of voting on the collective bargaining bill again.
For indeed it was the Republican leader in that body, Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald, who publicly warned the court of that ultimatum.
And this, ironically, was a separation of powers case. Separation of powers is a constitutional law doctrine which presumes the independence of the judiciary from the other two political branches of government.
Has any reporter or editorialist mentioned this at all?
The delay, Justice Prosser tells us, came about because over the weekend prior to the altercation in Justice Bradley's office, he had authored a concurring opinion to complement the three other conservatives' unsigned order. Also over that weekend, Chief Justice Abrahamson had written a dissent in counterpoint to the order and was surprised by the appearance of Justice Prosser's concurrence on Monday.
The Chief therefore needed additional time to revise her dissenting opinion to include addressing the issues raised by Prosser that were not present in the order. Justice Prosser claimed Chief Justice Abrahamson shouldn't have been surprised at his concurring opinion because, "The discussion was very clear that there was going to be, that there was at least a possibility, that the majority were going to write more than was in the order, and I'm the natural person to do that. I think anybody with any brains would have known that I was writing an opinion."
Thus even though only "a possibility" existed, "anybody with any brains would have known" he was writing, according to Justice Prosser.
Not exactly the most rigorous logic in establishing that presumption.
Nor particularly charitable where collegiality is ultimately at issue.
Prosser should have left out his opinion. That writing had to one of the worst excuses fora judicial opinion written. "It just doesn't matter" doesn't belong in any form of the law
ReplyDeleteLovely and complete summary
ReplyDeleteWhat's also incredible is that a month after he felt the warmth of Bradley's cervical epidermis, Prosser is still accusing Abrahamson of using delay tactics despite the fact that the minority overcame his administrative incompetence and the shock of the altercation in time to save the Fitzgeralds' necks.
ReplyDeleteYou'd almost think there was some inherent danger to the Republicans needing to vote on the thing lawfully for once. But apparently WISGOP confidence is back on the rise these days, what with winning all those recall elections and such.
ReplyDeleteI don't about you, but if I ever get into big trouble, I'll keep the phrase "except when suddenly if you don't have the opportunity to think about it and you're reacting, and that's what happened to me" handy, because apparently that'll get you out of almost anything.
ReplyDelete"In fact, two justices appear to hold hostile attitudes toward that HR officer, Margaret Brady, according to statements included in the police report."
ReplyDeleteOne being Gableman, Mr. Congeniality.
Your foil "Professor" Jacobson is at it again...
ReplyDeletelegalinsurrection.com/2011/08/turns-out-wi-justice-ann-walsh-bradley-was-the-one-with-the-anger-management-problem/#comments
Yes, Jacobson insists on his definition of "choke hold." Silly man.
ReplyDelete