Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Prosser: A Good Writer And An Even Temperament - Redux

Everyone in Wisconsin is playing the newest fad in games: Clue - The Wisconsin Supreme Court Edition.

David Prosser displaying the proper hand
position for a one-handed choke hold.
It all started when the story was finally brought out that Justice Ann Walsh Bradley accused her fellow Justice David Prosser of choking her. What earned her his wrath and alleged attempt of dispensing corporeal-bordering-on-capital punishment was telling him to leave her chambers.

Prosser immediately denied it and said he would not comment further on it.

Bradley Walsh reaffirmed her allegation and it also came out that she had told Prosser to do something about his anger control problems.

Somewhere in this, Christian Schneider, indirectly paid Koch Corp employee, earned his nickname of Atomic Pantload, when he came up with this fantasy tale of Bradley Walsh being the aggressor and trying to rush Prosser, who was merely defending himself by going for her trachea.

But there is more than a few problems with this tale of the magi.

First, as noted above, going for the trachea is not considered a defensive maneuver.  It is an act of hostility.

Two, it is a textbook example of a batterer's excuse-making.

Three, Prosser has a long history of being both a misogynist and having a temper problem.  No matter how well the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel might tell us that Prosser is "a good writer," the facts are overwhelming against Prosser on whether he has an even temperament.

Four, even has he complains of the media citing anonymous sources, he himself cites anonymous justices.  Apparently anonymous justices are worth ten time just your average run of the mill anonymous source.  Secondly, I wonder why he's not naming names.

If it was one of the more law abiding justices, like even Chief Justice Abrahamson herself, you know he would be naming them immediately to support his story and show what "a crazed woman" Bradley Walsh really is.

So that leaves the conservative justices.  It could be Michael Gableman, whose claim to fame is by winning  his election by violating judicial ethic rules and flat out lying about his opponent.  Or it could be Annette Ziegler, famed for her start on the bench under a cloud of admitted ethics violations herself.

To sum it up, Mr. Pantload's story is so full of holes and inconsistencies, it might make an interesting Perry Mason episode, but that's about as close to reality it would ever get.

In this particular game, the only proper answer can be: "It was Prosser, in the chamber, with a choke hold."


  1. Christian interviewed the witnesses.

    Who have you interviewed?

  2. Which witnesses? The anonymous one versus compared to the anonymous three in the original story?

  3. Haven't Belling and Sykes spun this to tell the truth that Prosser was trying to size Justice Bradley up for a pearl necklace yet?

  4. Anonymous 5:59, you're pushing the line with that comment. Try to scale it back a bit, OK? Thanks.

  5. If the Journal Sentinel thinks Prosser is a good writer, why don't they hire the guy to replace Patrick McKnuckelhead as their resident wingnut columnist? Then the state's highest court could be rid of him and his destructive presence.

  6. > Christian interviewed the witnesses.

    Oh, really? Then how come when Milwaukee Fox Channel 6 sought out on-camera interviews with every justice, they all politely (or in Prosser's case, impolitely) declined? Is Christian really that great a journalist, or are we believe the justices of both political wings defer to his great wisdom, discerning ear and reputation? Or maybe, he only heard what he wanted to hear, and at least certain justices of similar persuasion told him what he wanted to hear.