Before she became a state Supreme Court justice, Rebecca Bradley represented in a child placement case the former COO of the law firm where they both had worked — and with whom she’d had a romantic relationship.
Steve Walters, senior producer at Wisconsin Eye, asked Kloppenburg to respond to an ad by a third-party group that includes a clip of Kloppenburg saying, “I never said I was tough on crime. Being tough on crime was not my message.” Kloppenburg swiftly denounced the ad saying the clip was 5 years old and implied it was not relevant to the current race. Moments earlier she had pointed to her opponent’s 24 year-old statements as evidence of why she isn’t the right choice for the state’s top court.
“Well, that is a clause taken out of context from 5 years ago,” Kloppenburg said.
Forget hate-filled articles that candidate Rebecca Bradley wrote as a student years ago. Much more important is how she handles that issue today. Much more important are the politically extreme groups in which she has actively participated as an adult. Much more important are the powerful lobbyists and dark money groups to whom she is indebted. Those are much better reasons to not vote for Rebecca Bradley on April 5.
What troubles me, though, is how Bradley comes up with her views today — specifically, are her court decisions derived from precedents and research, or does she justify her decisions through politically conservative viewpoints consistent with the point in time she makes them in? Her recent political associations, which she hardly tries to hide, suggests it’s the latter.
I wrote about Bradley’s college opinions on Monday and explained that her words were troubling because they were very hate-filled. But I also explained my concerns that it seemed like her line of thinking — and in fact, her judicial philosophy — was more derived from her conservative views and what are popular viewpoints in conservatism today, rather than sound research, stare decisis and empirical evidence. – See more at: http://political-heat.blogspot.com/2016/03/rebecca-bradleys-opinions-may-have.html#sthash.303zdoPz.dpuf
The revelations by One Wisconsin Now of Rebecca Bradley’s vile printed opinions against gay people and those afflicted with HIV/AIDS are bad enough, even if she wrote it while she was in college in 1992. First off, I graduated high school in 1992, the summer after Magic Johnson revealed he had caught HIV through unprotected heterosexual sex, and to say something like this about people with HIV/AIDS was way out of bounds back then.
On Election Day voters can say how they feel about the tone of the election as much as they can over the issues. The best way to let Bradley know her hate and bitterness is not the stuff that makes for Wisconsin values is to simply not vote for her. Cast a ballot for someone else, or no one in the race. Let your voice be front and center for how we want our candidates to behave as they ask us for the responsibility to lead.
If they can not respect us during the campaign what hope do we have after they are elected?
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.
Tuesday’s primary results are the latest reminder that it’s almost impossible to have a boring election in the current, overheated political environment….
State Sen. Chris Larson — Who could have seen this coming? Except, obviously, Abele’s pollster, who must have convinced the millionaire incumbent to start spending early and often on his re-election campaign. Yet, in the end, Larson bested Abele by more than 700 votes, despite constant turmoil in Larson’s camp. Now the big question is this: How much will Abele spend to hang onto his seat? Insiders say $5 million is a low estimate….
Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele — The response from the state’s political insiders was summed up by this veteran operative: “Chris Abele’s statewide ambitions took a major hit (Tuesday).” Abele allies were quick to push back. Said one: “It’s way more likely Rep. Dana Wachs” — who? — “runs for governor than Abele.” Look for Abele to ditch his feel-good TV ads and lit pieces in favor of hit jobs focusing on Larson’s shoplifting ticket and Senate record. “Abele will spend what it takes to win,” said one Abele supporter on Wednesday. “There is no number on it.” Must be nice to have deep pockets.
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.
A political party that is more eager to restrict votes than encourage them is unlikely to curry any favors with a new generation of voters.
You read that correctly. Abele spent $42.00 per vote to Larson’s $2.00 per vote, and despite being the incumbent, lost the primary to his opponent.
Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell and Madison City Clerk Maribeth Witzel-Behl are working with the UW-Madison Political Science Department (Kenneth Mayer) to quantify the effect on voters of the Republican voter obstruction project, specifically the mandated and narrow range of photo voter IDs as a new precondition to vote, (Neumann, WKOW-TV) (Novak, Wisconsin State Journal).
Today, Madison, Wisconsin poll workers (election inspectors) will time how long the voter ID requirement takes voters to satisfy, for the purpose of plugging the numbers into existing models at MIT using Queuing Theory to predict and quantify how congested polling places obstruct and delay voters.
Data shows that nothing nefarious was happening at the polling places in Wisconsin. NOTHING. There were no streams of voters pretending to be someone else, or voting twice. There were no throngs of folks using fake aliases to cast a ballot, and there were no elections that had been decided by all the wild claims. The only drama that takes place regarding elections are when Republicans breathlessly try to gin up their base with false-hoods about voter fraud.
….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….