With competing versions of what happened in the chambers of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I think that the answer is pretty straightforward.
Those who share my worldview are to be believed. They’re good people, trying to do the right thing. Those that disagree with my worldview, on the other hand, are likely lying. I have no proof of this, save for the fact that their version of events contradicts those that are out there trying to make the state a better place, but we should put the burden of proving what happened to those that are in the pockets of ideologues and special interests.
There are those that will tell you that we should believe the other people. Or that we should reserve judgment because we weren’t there. What you have to remember is that these people frequently hold views on social and economic issues that are wrong. There are also other members under their general tent that say things that I find so wrongheaded as to be offensive, especially when I paraphrase them in an unflattering manner or take their arguments to their most ludicrous conclusions. And others only think we should “reserve judgement” because they know what we do. People that agree with me are more likely to be honest than people that agree with them.
Interesting that nowehere in your essay do you actually state your opinion, nor do you state who is wrongheaded.
This is my first time on your site so I honestly don’t know which side you are on.
What’s interesting is there were 4 other justices in the room, and my guess is their statements will be completely different and completely based on ideological lines. The conservative justices in the room will side with Prosser, and say that Bradley charged at him. the liberals in the room will side with Bradley, and say that prosser choked her.
The end game of this is that, even if either Bradley or Prosser resign or are dismissed, Walker gets to appoint the replacement so the Republicans win. If they both resign, Walker gets to appont 2 replacements.
I honestly don’t know how to fairly evaluate who is telling the truth and who is full or crap. I could visualize this being either way. I could see Prosser being so full of himself after winning reelection that he acted like a pompous jerk, created a scene, and ultimately grabbed her neck. I could see Bradley being so frustrated that Prosser won reelection that she baited an altercation and then exagerated the details of it.
Wow. I’m really struggling here to decide if this comment is an ironic satire that playfully takes the baton from Will, or if it is really possible to miss the point that badly.
Will Truman, you are wrong. Dead wrong. People who hold my worldview are the ones who are most likely to have a propensity for the truth. After all, didn’t they do that good thing that I praised not too long ago? Meanwhile, your partisans are untrustworthy in the extreme, as evidenced by their long track records of moral failings and this cherry-picked list of ethical transgressions of unrelated people who are, in my calculus of such things, closer to your worldview than my own.
What you don’t understand is that the participant in this behind-closed-doors incident who more closely adheres to your perspective has previously exhausted all claims to credibility by way of a prior action with which I disagree and which has had at least one disagreeable result. Did that person care about the disagreeable result? No, not even an apology has been forthcoming since then.
Unfortunately, the fact that you have stuck up for the person you have, rather than the person you did not, is convincing evidence that your opinion on matters upon which we disagree is not to be trusted or relied upon, and although I had effectively done so once before, I and all other right-thinking people reject you totally.
And I hope y’all stay on top of who the douchebag[s] in Wisconsin turn out to be. Because, from my chair, the douchebaggery in Wisconsin has heavily leaned to one side of the aisle for some time now, along Saul Alinsky lines. I freely confess to being a gentleperson on the other side of the aisle, but I have found that such things tend to get flushed down the memory hole, and damned fucking quick. When they originate on the side of the aisle that ain’t mine. ;-{
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/123336/
Note: Judge Prosser, the alleged “conservative” in question, is a gentleman who allegedly stands 5 foot 2. Judge Bradley is an alleged gentlewoman who allegedly stands taller.
I do trust gentlepersons Likko and Truman to sort this shit out. Bigtime. Something is rotten in Wisconsin, and I do not think the smell can be facilely traced to the middle of the aisle.
I’m going to wait for a lot more information to come out on this issue before I offer any judgment about who did what in that situation beyond my tongue-in-cheek banter with Will.
Heh. Indeed.
Prosser is short? Well, my mind is made up!
Oh, Elias, perhaps your mind is made up regardless of whether Judge Prosser is Five Foot Two or if his eyes are blue. Oh, what those five foot could do!
I have read a bit on this, and will be interested in your reaction when the truth comes out. My own prediction is that this is another one destined for the memory hole, terminated with extreme prejudice and post haste.
But something stinks in Wisconsin, me brother, and it ain’t the cheese.
I’m 5’9″. I do not assume that a woman who’s 6 feet tall can beat me up.