A million-dollar ad for Justice Bradley, and why –
And as I have pointed out in the past, Milwaukee County Executor, er, Executive Chris “Boss” Abele had endorsed Bradley when she was running for reelection as a circuit court judge three years ago.
Not only did Abele endorse her, but his statement regarding the endorsement should leave one wondering about his own judgment and temperament….
“To those offended by comments I made as a young college student, I apologize, and assure you that those comments are not reflective of my worldview. These comments have nothing to do with who I am as a person or a jurist, and they have nothing to do with the issues facing the voters of this state,” said Bradley in a statement.
Bradley did not elaborate on the self-examination and analysis in which she engaged, leading her to a new and different conclusion on ‘abnormal degenerates’.
Wisconsinites should be aware of the type of person running for election on the state Supreme Court. Her strangely worded explanation strains credulity, and is unconvincing.
I have to wonder about the character and viewpoint of someone who develops such a jaundiced view of Americans so early in life. Add this in to her lack of judicial background and her apparent lack of interest in doing judicial work when she can work with conservative business groups instead, and you have a compelling argument against voting for Bradley in the upcoming election. JoAnne Kloppenburg has proved to have a much better judicial temperament and fairer view of the people of this state.
Madison — Newly appointed state Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote in a student newspaper 24 years ago that she had no sympathy for AIDS patients because they had effectively chosen to kill themselves, called gays “queers” and said Americans were “either totally stupid or entirely evil” for electing President Bill Clinton.
In one piece, she wrote people would be better off getting AIDS than cancer under Clinton because it would get more funding.”How sad that the lives of degenerate drug addicts and queers are valued more than the innocent victims of more prevalent ailments,” wrote Bradley, who then had the last name of Grassl.
….a fellow named Bill Cunningham, who had dinner with Scalia–who told him that ‘in the end, it all comes down to two words.’
Those two words?
As in other recent Supreme Court elections, spending by interest groups will likely dwarf that by the candidates and their campaigns. But a look at candidate finances is still instructive.
Both Bradley and Kloppenburg each raised a little more than $300,000 as of the last reporting period, but Bradley spent a great deal more: about $213,000 to Kloppenburg’s $74,000, campaign disclosure reports show. Kloppenburg was left with a lot more cash on hand, $269,000 to $107,000
Why would Bradley be more willing to spend down her reserves? Maybe it’s because she knows there’s more money to be had. Her campaign has already spent nearly $50,000 on direct mail, a key way to raise more money. Kloppenburg’s reported direct-mail spending: $0.
Alternative career path —
Every Wisconsin Democrat, whether a Clinton or Sanders supporter, should hope and wish that Sanders stays in the race until Wisconsin’s presidential primary on April 5. A competitive Clinton-Sanders race would boost Democratic turnout and that could have a major impact on the other races on the ballot.
….Justice Bradley voted with the majority in this case even though she did not hear the original arguments of the trial. Is this the sort of “interpreting the law rather than inventing it” that she is promising? As Justice Abrahamson argued in her own dissent in this case, this appears to be an unprecedented move on the part of Justice Bradley. Since there’s no precedent it is hard to say that this ruling is wrong due to Bradley voting – but it’s clearly unseemly, and smacks of joining in with her friends on a ruling even though she didn’t participate in the fact-finding….
Ross Douthat of the New York Times offered a thoughtful retrospective on Scalia’s term on the high court and finished it with a paragraph on the knock-down-drag-out-fight that will ensue between Congress and the White House over naming a successor before the Presidential election.
Douthat points out that Scalia himself would hate the idea of Congress delaying the appointment of a new Justice–and making that appointment the key issue in a Presidential election–because Scalia didn’t believe the Supreme Court should have that big an impact on the average American’s life. As a Constitutionalist, Scalia believed that the role of government should be limited. That’s why when you read the list of Amendments dating back to the early days of the Republic, you notice that they list all of the things Congress shall not do.
The deciding vote came from someone who didn’t even hear the case, Walker appointee Republican Justice Rebecca Bradley.
“The decision Wednesday was also notable in that Justice Rebecca Bradley joined the majority that overruled the Court of Appeals, even though she had not heard arguments in the case, which occurred before her appointment Oct. 9 by Gov. Scott Walker.”
Yeah, that’ll make the difference –
MADISON, Wis. — Rebecca Bradley, whose first day as a justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court was Monday, registered a website domain name identifying her as a justice even before applications were due for the interim position she was appointed to.
Bradley was widely — and accurately — seen as the favorite to be appointed by Gov. Scott Walker to fill out the final nine months of Justice Pat Crooks’ term; Crooks died last month. Walker had twice selected Bradley for judicial openings previously and her candidacy for a full 10-year high court term had the conservatives’ backing.