 |
| Supreme Court Justice David Prosser. |
As those who listen to my commentary on WUWM-FM would know, I predicted weeks ago there would be no prosecution of anyone in the fracas between Wisconsin Supreme Court justices David Prosser and Ann Walsh Bradley. It’s hard enough to prosecute a he said/she said case, but the difficulties multiply exponentially when four other justices who observed the incident also disagree, creating six different versions of the same story. This moves the case well beyond reasonable doubt and into the realm of a Broadway farce.
The still-pending investigation by the Wisconsin Judicial Commission is even less likely to come to a conclusion. The commission must report its findings to the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, whose members saw six different versions of the same event. I’m guessing they won’t agree on what action should be taken.
But if Prosser is not guilty of any crime, he does appear to have a serious problem, and one that he seems unwilling to address. Even on a court that has become infamous for its fractiousness, Prosser stands out as the justice who most lacks judicial temperament.
As far as we know, he is the only judge who called another member of the court a “bitch” and threatened to “destroy” that person (specifically, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson). Prosser admitted he did this.
As far as we know, he is the only justice described as having a long history of outbursts. Justice N. Patrick Crooks told investigators the problems of Prosser’s blow-ups (he “explodes and storms out of a room” three or four times a year) go back more than a decade.
As far as we know, Prosser is the only member of the court who other justices felt needed to be referred to officers who oversee the courts. Crooks told investigators that he and Bradley met with the court’s human resources officer as well as the director of the state courts, A. John Voelker, back in February “because they felt there was an escalation” in Prosser’s aggression.
Crooks, of course, is considered one of the court’s liberals, but his story about him and Bradley meeting with these officials could be easily checked. Meanwhile, conservative court members did not accuse Bradley of a pattern of incivility. You get the sense that even on a very fractious court Prosser is the biggest hothead.
As for the alleged choking, it’s clear by all accounts, even Bradley’s, that Prosser applied no pressure with his hands. But both Bradley and Prosser agree his hands were on her neck. She says his hands made a full circle, whereas he says he “remembers the warmth on the side of Justice Bradley’s neck in his hands.” So his hands were on her neck long enough to feel the warmth of her body.
Even if Bradley did ask him to leave her office and came at him shaking her fist (which Bradley and Abrahamson deny), is the appropriate response to put both of his hands on her neck? Bradley is 5-feet-3 inches and weighs 131 pounds; Prosser is 5-feet-9 inches and 165 pounds. Just how threatened could he have been?
Prosser’s responses to his behavior suggest a man who refuses to confront any problem he might have. When the press asked about his verbal attack on Abrahamson, he accused her and Bradley of “deliberately goading people into perhaps incautious statements.” (“Incautious” is a curious way to describe statements such as “bitch” and I’ll “destroy” you.)
As for the choking allegation, Prosser has indicated no need to apologize and essentially blamed the whole thing on Bradley, accusing her of sensationalizing the incident with “scurrilous charges.” Spoken like a man who still sounds angry and sees no need to change his behavior.
Ann Althouse Plays Perry Mason
Ann Althouse is the darling of the right. I’ve never quite understood why. Perhaps it’s the rarity of a university academic, much less in liberal UW-Madison, taking a conservative line on some issues.
But if her column calling reporter Bill Lueders “evil” is any indication of her talent as a blogger, let’s just say she’s long on posturing and gasbagging, and short on substance.
It was Lueders who broke the story on the Prosser –Bradley incident, not long after the longtime Isthmus news editor jumped ship to work for the nonprofit Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism. Lueders had three off-the-record sources telling him that Prosser “allegedly grabbed fellow justice by the neck,” as the headline of his story noted. And as we now know from Prosser, he had both hands on Bradley’s neck.
Lueders’ sources said Capitol Police Chief Charles Tubbs was notified of the incident and met with the Supreme Court about the incident, which we now know is true. His sources said the Wisconsin Judicial Commission was told of the incident, which we know now to be true. He also noted Prosser’s past history, his verbal attack on Abrahamson, which would suggest a possible pattern.
Lueders and other reporters (including those from Wisconsin Public Radio, which collaborated on the story with the Center for Investigative Journalism) tried to contact every justice but most did not respond. Lueders did talk to Prosser, who twice declined comment, the second time after Lueders described the specific allegations by his sources.
All in all, quite a scoop. But Althouse is troubled by the fact that a later Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story had more sources, perhaps as many as six, some of whom say Bradley advanced on Prosser with that fist of “fury.” So how is it possible that Lueders didn’t get this part of the story?
Simple. Prosser and his supporters were hoping the story wouldn’t get out or wouldn’t have legs. Once it was published and once the media’s 800-pound gorilla, the Journal Sentinel, starting calling, Prosser and the conservative justices realized they had no choice but to talk to the press. (As someone who has worked for numerous journalistic entities in Wisconsin, let me tell you, my phone calls to sources were never returned faster than when I worked for the JS.)
Althouse also asks how Lueders could have had three sources and not have gotten the alternative version of the story. Simple: He may have talked to Abrahamson and two clerks, or to some other “knowledgeable” source, as his story describes them. But remember, Lueders’ organization made every attempt to get other justices to talk (including having the court’s spokesperson, Amanda Todd, send e-mails to all the justices informing them of the story Lueders was working on.) He could only report the information he had.
The answer to Althouse’s two great challenges, in short, is stunningly obvious, yet she goes on for 29 excruciating graphs in a lame attempt to play Perry Mason and pronounce Lueders guilty, while titillating us with the question of whether Lueders is stupid or evil or both. The answer is none of the above. The only thing stupid here (I won’t say evil) is Althouse’s column.
Finally, I should note that Lueders and I know each other. We have edited each other’s stories over the years and often disagreed, including publicly in a column I did once that slammed a column of opinion he wrote. But I have never known Lueders to leave out key information in a story for ideological reasons nor heard such an accusation made. As a general rule, it is stupid to do this because (1) you may dry up sources who lose trust in you and (2) you may even have them calling your boss to complain.
But the biggest reason Lueders wouldn’t have left out the fist of fury version of the story is because it is so juicy and would make a great scoop even greater. And because he would know that if he left it out, other media would pick up that part of the story and scoop him on his own scoop. All that too, would be obvious to Althouse, if she knew anything about journalism.
