• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mahoney says he won't take direct role in Supreme Court investigation

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney effectively removed himself from the investigation into allegations state Supreme Court Justice David Prosser put a “chokehold” on a fellow justice after questions were raised about Mahoney’s objectivity because he endorsed Prosser’s opponent in the recent election.
Click to expand...

This could be one of the most hot-button criminal investigations in the history of the State of Wisconsin. Sheriff Dave Mahoney is a Democrat, who supported Prosser's opponent in the recent Supreme Court election, so he is doing the right thing by stepping down, after the case was given to him, and allowing others to be in charge of the investigation. There are two sides to this story. Either:

1) Mr. Prosser put his hands around Mrs. Bradley's neck and began to choke her, during a heated argument.

OR

2) Mrs. Bradley charged Mr. Prosser, with fists raised, and Mr. Prosser defended himself by choking her.

I am not taking a position either way at this time, but given Mr. Prosser's past history of making threats of violence against other judges, some anger management classes certainly wouldn't hurt him.

Article is here.
 
Until this past year the State of Wisconsin has not exactly been a hot bed of political intrigue, but this story has the potential to blossom into story worthy of a movie of the week.

I can't wait to see how this progresses as the facts become known. As was said by danerhea I will withhold judgement until more is known and confirmed
 
There is also more to this than meets the eye.....

Strife between the court's liberal and conservative factions has been intensifying since 2007, when special interest groups started pouring millions into judicial elections in hopes of influencing the court's ideology.
Click to expand...

And there you have it. You have the Koch Brothers pouring money into it for the Republicans, and you have the unions pouring money into it for the Democrats, in efforts to bias the courts in their favor. But courts are supposed to be completely non-partisan, only looking at the fact, and not injecting ideology into law. Campaign contributions for political campaigns is one thing, but for the courts, this should be illegal. The fact that it isn't is the biggest factor in why the Wisconsin Supreme Court has become the way it is.
 
Even Bradley acknowledged (although probably by accident) that no choking actually took place.

The most logical thing, based on what is currently known, is that Mrs. Bradley charged Mr. Prosser, with fists raised, and Mr. Prosser defended himself putting his hands up near her neck.

During the meeting, Chief Justice Abrahamson actually reenacted the incident on Chief Tubbs — no doubt an amusing sight, as the diminutive Abrahamson mimicked choking the tall, portly police chief. During her demonstration, Abrahamson emphasized that Prosser had exerted “pressure” on Bradley’s throat.

“There was no pressure,” interrupted the justice who had initially broken up the incident between Bradley and Prosser. “That’s only because you broke us apart,” shot back Bradley. This exchange led several meeting attendees to believe Bradley was making up the charge, as they took her rejoinder as an admission that there was no pressure applied to her neck."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
buck said:
Even Bradley acknowledged (although probably by accident) that no choking actually took place.

The most logical thing, based on what is currently known, is that Mrs. Bradley charged Mr. Prosser, with fists raised, and Mr. Prosser defended himself putting his hands up near her neck.
Click to expand...

I am not sure about that. The fact that the Capitol Police asked for a criminal investigation says that there is more to this than meets the eye. Either Mrs. Bradley attacked Mr. Prosser, or Mr. Prosser attacked Mrs. Bradley. IMHO, if the investigation shows one or the other, then one of them must go. There is no room on the Supreme Court for this kind of behavior.
 
danarhea said:
I am not sure about that. The fact that the Capitol Police asked for a criminal investigation says that there is more to this than meets the eye. Either Mrs. Bradley attacked Mr. Prosser, or Mr. Prosser attacked Mrs. Bradley. IMHO, if the investigation shows one or the other, then one of them must go. There is no room on the Supreme Court for this kind of behavior.
Click to expand...

To believe Bradley’s claim, you would have to ignore the contradiction of her initially stating that she was choked then later indicated that no pressure was applied because she was pulled back by one of the other justices.

You’d also have to find logic in an accusation that Prosser (which didn’t appear overly angry from what I’ve read) was the instigator against Bradley, who was very worked up after Prosser questioned the chief justices ability to lead the court. It just doesn’t make much sense. Time will tell, though.

The one thing I do like of what you said is that you state that whoever caused the issue should be taken off the court. Most of those on the left I’ve heard on this subject believe that only Prosser should be removed. You were at least even about it.
 
Last edited:
I may be wrong, but I think I can get in trouble for taking a swing at you even if I miss.

I am pretty sure I can get in trouble for shooting at you even if I miss.

I don't think that not getting a chance to give a good squeeze is exactly a defense against this charge.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
I may be wrong, but I think I can get in trouble for taking a swing at you even if I miss.

I am pretty sure I can get in trouble for shooting at you even if I miss.

I don't think that not getting a chance to give a good squeeze is exactly a defense against this charge.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you can not get in trouble for putting up your hands to defend against someone coming at you with anger. Even if those hands happen to be near the neck of the individual "charging".

But, it's not that he didn't get a good squeeze in, it's that she obviously lied by initially claiming that there was a choking, then accidentally acknowleding that no choking took place. That should give a reasonable person some doubts on the veracity of the rest of the story she provided.

This exchange led several meeting attendees to believe Bradley was making up the charge, as they took her rejoinder as an admission that there was no pressure applied to her neck."
Click to expand...

It certainly gave those in attendance at the meeting a reason to pause.
 
Last edited:
Simon W. Moon said:
I may be wrong, but I think I can get in trouble for taking a swing at you even if I miss.

I am pretty sure I can get in trouble for shooting at you even if I miss.

I don't think that not getting a chance to give a good squeeze is exactly a defense against this charge.
Click to expand...

Squeezing my wife's ass last night? Guilty as charged. :mrgreen:
 
buck said:
I'm pretty sure you can not get in trouble for putting up your hands to defend against someone coming at you with anger. Even if those hands happen to be near the neck of the individual "charging".

But, it's not that he didn't get a good squeeze in, it's that she obviously lied by initially claiming that there was a choking, then accidentally acknowleding that no choking took place. That should give a reasonable person some doubts on the veracity of the rest of the story she provided.

It certainly gave those in attendance at the meeting a reason to pause.
Click to expand...
I am not defending or discussing what did or did not happen so much as merely addressing the parts of posts that implied that not putting pressure on her neck some how got him out of it.

If he didn't do it, then that would be an acceptable defense, whereas just not having a chance to get a good grip does not.
 
danarhea said:
^Yea, she kicked his ass last time he tried to get fresh with her. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
So not worried about your wife--I have my own wife to worry about. My wife knows where I sleep.
 
danarhea said:
This could be one of the most hot-button criminal investigations in the history of the State of Wisconsin. Sheriff Dave Mahoney is a Democrat, who supported Prosser's opponent in the recent Supreme Court election, so he is doing the right thing by stepping down, after the case was given to him, and allowing others to be in charge of the investigation. There are two sides to this story. Either:

1) Mr. Prosser put his hands around Mrs. Bradley's neck and began to choke her, during a heated argument.

OR

2) Mrs. Bradley charged Mr. Prosser, with fists raised, and Mr. Prosser defended himself by choking her.

I am not taking a position either way at this time, but given Mr. Prosser's past history of making threats of violence against other judges, some anger management classes certainly wouldn't hurt him.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

He should have bitch slapped her back into the kitchen. :mrgreen:
 
Get rid of them both. Thugs with degrees. No better than a drunk at a trailer park or a crackhead in a mansion.
 
Loose Feather said:
Get rid of them both. Thugs with degrees. No better than a drunk at a trailer park or a crackhead in a mansion.
Click to expand...

And what if one of them is actually innocent? I am going to wait for the result of the criminal investigation before I judge either of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom