Sunday, March 17, 2013

Rebecca Bradley: With Extreme Prejudice

With the news full of things like Scott Walker campaigning for president, the jobless mining bill and other acts of malfeasance by the Republicans and the race for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, it's easy to forget about the local races this spring.

Janet Protasiewicz
One such race that hasn't gotten much attention from the corporate media is the race for Milwaukee County Circuit Court Branch 45.  The race is between the "incumbent" judge, Rebecca Bradley and Janet Protasiewicz.

For the record, I endorsed Protasiewicz for the primary and I am proud to endorse her for the general election on April 2.  I endorsed her because I know first hand of her strong work ethic, her balanced view and her dedication to the law.
At that time, I also pointed out that Protasiewicz' opponent was not being honest with the voters:

I need to point out that the "incumbent," Rebecca Bradley was appointed to her seat by Scott Walker four months ago, for no other purpose than to give the incumbent boost at the polls.

I know many people that have appeared before her. Let me just say they were not very impressed. She took an exceptionally long time to learn her job and still has a hard time trying to do it.

Furthermore, she is less than honest with the voters. Almost nowhere in her literature (which she sends two of each one to my home), her webpage or ads does she mention that she used to lead the Milwaukee Branch of the Federalist Society.

For the unfamiliar, the Federalist Society is to law what Media Trackers is to journalism. Their mission is to find legal ways to advance their uber-conservative agenda.
It turns out I was not completely accurate with that assessment. As it turns out, Bradley is a lot more partisan and a lot more dishonest than I had previously thought.

As noted above, she was appointed by Scott Walker just five months ago.  The first red flag came in his announcement of her appointment to the bench (emphasis mine):
“Appointing Ms. Bradley ensures the residents of Milwaukee County receive timely and fair service from the court system,” said Governor Walker. “Ms. Bradley is a great lawyer, a person of integrity, and she understands the proper role of a judge. She will be a great addition to the Milwaukee County bench.”
Given his relationship to certain members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, like David "Rubber Stamp" Prosser, we know what this means.

My suspicions grew in the time leading up to the primary and we received numerous flyers from her campaign.  That was a lot of money for a county race primary and for someone who just started her campaign just three months before.

What I also found interesting was some of the language on her mailers:

Click on image to embiggen

Pay note to the first highlighted line: "...applying the law impartially, free of any political agenda."  One would think that when someone says something like this, they would mean there would no political agenda, but the facts show that Bradley's whole campaign is about furthering the extreme right wing agenda.

First off, a quick look at the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's database shows that not only has Bradley made political donations, but all $1,350 of it went to Scott Walker, with the most recent being just months before he appointed her to the bench:

Click on image to embiggen
Another red flag should be when Bradley announced her campaign and named Michael Grebe as one of her campaign co-chairs.  Grebe is, as the gentle reader already knows, the head of the corrupt, racist Bradley Foundation and was Scott Walker's  campaign chairman for both of his last two campaigns.

Well, at least now we can surmise how she afforded all those mailings.

Her "nonpartisanship" is also demonstrated by the fact that she is a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA).  One of the main issues for the RNLA is voter suppression, which has been shown to be targeting young minorities the most.  As written by the Republicans, the voter suppression laws would be the most restrictive in the nation.  Bradley's RNLA responded with inflammatory, irresponsible and baseless rhetoric, saying opposition to the voter suppression law came from "the far left, anti-democracy and divisive campaign funded by George Soros."

Well, that certainly makes it clearer on why Grebe is involved with the campaign.

As I had mentioned before, Bradley also did a stint as President of the Milwaukee Federalist Society - a fact that she is trying to scrub from her profiles.  The Federalist Society is funded in part by the Bradley Foundation (cue Grebe again) and the issue this presents is best described by Tom Foley, aka Illusory Tenant:

The incumbent, Republican Scott Walker appointee Rebecca Bradley, describes herself as a "nonideological" member of the Federalist Society, which is an organization of malcontents and paranoid hysterics with law degrees that was founded on political ideology. 
Kinda like being a Milwaukee Admiral but you don't play hockey.

As further proof of her "freedom of any political agenda, it should be noted that she has a rather peculiar habit of attending Republican fundraisers and other events such as the Milwaukee County Reagan Day Dinner and the Milwaukee County Lincoln Day Dinner:

Needless to say, a preponderance of the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Rebecca Bradley is an extremist and as partisan as they come.

So when it comes to April 2nd and the election on who will sit in Milwaukee County Circuit Court Branch 45, the choice is really, really clear.

You can vote for Protasiewicz and get justice or you can vote for Bradley and get more of Scott Walker's right wing extremist agenda that will do nothing to protect you or your rights.

Please support and vote for Janet Protasiewicz for Milwaukee County Branch 45.


  1. Wow - I had no idea about any of this. Thank you so much! You do an excellent job with these posts.

  2. And Janet P's. longtime memberbership in the Democratic Party makes her non-partisan? Or maybe just the activist partisan judge you would prefer.

    1. Please point to where Janet led a group whose intent was to change the law. Quite a difference between being a member of a political party and being the head of an activist group.

    2. What group again did Judge Bradley lead that wanted to change a law? Fed Soc is committed to judges that won't legislate from the bench, that is, not change laws as written. The whole point of Fed Soc's stance is that personal opinions should not affect judicial decisions. This isn't about personal beliefs; it is about whether one will let those personal opinions affect their judicial decisions. Only one candidate is committed to keeping their personal feelings about a law out of the courtroom. Judge Rebecca Bradley.

    3. I'd say the evidence shows otherwise. Who you gonna believe, Bradley or your own lyin' eyes?

    4. BTW, as pointed out in the post, the Federalist Society was founded on changing the laws.

  3. I looked at Bradley as being "from the Right" and Protasewicz as being "from the Left," which is why I voted for Gil Urfer in the primary. Capper, let's see if he endorses anyone in this race.

    One thing I must say is that I'm at the Courthouse pretty frequently, and if Judge Bradley were really doing that bad a job, the knives would have been out for her considering many of the employees are on the Left side of the aisle politically. I haven't appeared before her, but colleagues say nothing but good things regarding her fairness and demeanor on the bench. She's been anything but some Right Wing ideologue so far. I'll vote for Fallone (but wish he'd actually begin to run a campaign!) and am leaning to the incumbent Bradley here but haven't made up my mind for sure.

    1. Well, considering that Bradley is working at Children's Court, I doubt many people at the Courthouse even know who she is.

      I have spoken to people that have appeared before her at Children's Court and her lack of understanding was so painfully obvious that the attorneys had to help her understand her job.

  4. Capper, you are a liar. Judge Bradley has received nothing but glowing reviews from the attorneys who appear before her. You can label her a lot of things but you can't suggest she does't understand her job.

    1. Sorry, but no I'm not. I've spoken to the people who have appeared before her. But then again, I was also the one who knew where her court was, wasn't I?

  5. $1,300 is considered large ,didn't Walker raise $30,000,000 , please at best this is nonsense stretch . Capper is another paid hack.

    1. Wait! What? I'm getting paid? Who's paying me, because I never got my check!

      Oh, and it's good to see you're OK with corruption.