State Supreme Court Justices are expected to be impartial adjudicators of difficult legal questions. However, they are also people with strong opinions and, sometimes, these divergent opinions cause problems.
Recently, Justice Prosser of Wisconsin was accused of attacking Justice Walsh Bradley , also of Wisconsin, when a case about a state law concerning union bargaining had to be decided.
All the accusations came from Ann Walsh Bradley and, unsurprisingly, the media was all over Prosser, claiming he had a hot temper and, therefore, had to be guilty! No media reported that Ann Walsh Bradley is also known to be hot tempered. Virtually no media source attempted to find out whether the facts in the case were true. Walsh Bradley’s view of the incident were front and center over and over in newspapers, tv, and even on the radio.
Prosser, on the other hand, maintained his stance of innocence and did not give any statements to the media.
Now, the special prosecutor has determined that there was no criminal action by Prosser which, in effect, is a confirmation of Prosser’s position.
So, did any of the media acknowledge Prosser’s vindication? Nope. They skewed every report to imply that Prosser “got away” with something when, in fact, he maintained the dignity of his postion by NOT running to the press and by waiting for the legal system to decide the matter impartially.
Much to the media’s surprise,witnesses supported Prosser’s version of the incident and his accuser’s version proved false. Time to judge for yourself if a justice who tells false stories should still be on our Supreme Court.