Wacky Rebecca Bradley, Worst WI Supreme Court Justice (next to Michael Gableman)!

Why did conservative voters think Rebecca Bradley would make a competent Supreme Court justice? Her documented background was a dumpster fire of cranky political name calling and gay bashing. I wrote this back in March of 2016:

She hasn't changed since 1992. What she said 24 years ago about queer loving, flag burning, radical, socialist, pot smoking liberals who voted for Bill Clinton when she was at Marquette University... 

"...We've just had an election which proves the majority of voters are either totally stupid or entirely evil..."    

...applies today. The "vicious" lies against Bradley mentioned in the ad below by crazy Sheriff Clarke were direct quotes from her own writings.

Bradley: "The PC movement is entirely the agenda of feminists, gays, liberal extremists and 1960's radicals who never left school and consequently are largely ignorant of the real world.

Rebecca Bradley's affair? What happened to conservative values?

As a private attorney, Rebecca Bradley represented in a child placement case the former chief operating officer of the law firm where both had previously worked — and with whom she acknowledged having had an extra-marital affair, according to court records.

Few candidates bring along this much baggage, as exposed by this Upfront interview:

After 6 years, we now know she was lying. Justice Rebecca Bradley now wields that power with cruelty and finality, using right-wings memes and fantasies instead of actual legal arguments. She boasts the court has the final say on everything. 

__________________________________________________________________________________

Tyranical Bradley fears the "Tyranny" of Liberals. In a little discussed major decision this last week...

The shocker was not just the courts approval of local health measures during COVID, but their frustration with Bradley's incoherent rantings about tyranny, writing it into their decision:

The majority also slammed the dissenting bloc for disparaging Dane County public health director Janel Heinrich as a "tyrant, an autocrat, a dictator, and a despot." They said the characterization of her work was a poor substitute for legal argument and damaged the public's perception of the court. Hagedorn wrote that the case centered not on whether a particular health order was out of bounds but whether the law allowed public health orders at all.

Proof is in the Video: This is a classic Bradley fear of tyranny moment, questioning the power of the state's health secretary during COVID...

Tyranical Drop Box Use (Note: Question, who is that "one man" having all that power?):

The majority opinion of the 114-page ruling quotes William Shakespeare and hip-hop artist Kanye West to make the case that the state elections commission overstepped its bounds. "No one man should have all that power," Bradley wrote, quoting West's lead single for his 2010 album "My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy." Bradley also suggests the ruling will prevent Wisconsin elections from becoming the rigged contests found in totalitarian regimes like Iraq, Cuba, Syria and North Korea.

"Throughout history, tyrants have claimed electoral victory via elections conducted in violation of governing law. 

Bradley Purely Political: It was no secret how she'd rule on the court..."goals and ideals that support Republican policy, agendas and candidates":

She has served as president of the Milwaukee chapter of the Federalist Society, a conservative lawyer's group, and has belonged to the Republican National Lawyers Association and the Thomas More Society, a Catholic legal group.

Bradley NOT Qualified: Surprised?

Lying about Campaign Coordination as Candidate for Court: Seriously, Bradley did everything she could to lose the election, yet still won the hearts of conservative voters: 

A conservative political action group, Wisconsin Alliance for Reform, is running an online issue ad in support of Justice Rebecca Bradley's Wisconsin Supreme Court bid using film footage shot by the Bradley campaign. It uses footage the Bradley campaign uploaded more than a week ago of the justice talking with police officers and other judges. The identical footage suggests Bradley's campaign is coordinating with the Alliance. However, both the campaign and the Alliance deny they're working together.

So I edited the Bradley campaigns stock "candid" footage of her acting judicial, to prove there was coordination. And that if she's willing to lie about this...seriously folks.

Notice the music beds are identical, with the Wisconsin Alliance for Reform ad featuring full orchestration, and the campaign footage featuring just a piano (you can hear faintly in the background):

_____________________________________________________________________________

Bonus Insanity. The Chief Justice Patience Roggensack proved that clueless politically motivated Justices make very bad public health decisions: 

The corrupt and openly activist State Supreme Court's Chief Justice just gave us this opinion based on a deadly belief, not law. Thank god she's retiring:

JS: Supreme Court Chief Justice Patience Roggensack dismissed the idea that the outbreak was community-wide and could be replicated elsewhere. "(The surge) was due to the meatpacking — that's where Brown County got the flare," Roggensack said. "It wasn't just the regular folks in Brown County."

The working class aren't "regular folks," according to Wisconsin's Republican chief justice, who is content to let them die. pic.twitter.com/JvnwdXJsPF

— Timothy Burke (@bubbaprog) May 5, 2020

Dodged a Bullet; Radical WI Supreme Court Justices would have sided with Trump to Throw out Votes!!!

We appear to have a few conservative activist Supreme Court Justices that think they are the elite know-it-all gods of "THE" Constitution. Notice the caps?

Trump's frivolous Election Challenge was "Serious?" While the majority surprisingly denied Trump what was to be a predictable quick decision in one of the most dysfunctional right-wing courts in the nation, it didn't stop the courts Trump enablers to forever soil their reputations.

Declaring from their lofty perch atop the mount...

Chief Justice Patience Roggensack: "The Respondents assert that we should deny this
petition because fact-finding is required, and we are not a fact-finding tribunal. I conclude that … Our jurisdiction arises from the Wisconsin Constitution and cannot be impeded by statute … that may preclude our deciding significant legal issues that cry out for resolution by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Even worse, here's what the most unqualified Justice on the court said, Rebecca Bradley, who makes major "legal" points now in ALL CAPS! Seriously? This isn't Facebook or Twitter. 

Rebecca Bradley: "The respondents implore this court to reject the challenge because, they
argue, declaring the law at this point would "retroactively change the rules" after the election. It is THE LAW that constitutes "the rules" … the Wisconsin Constitution...The importance of having the State's highest court resolve the significant legal issues … this court's constitutional authority … Justice Hagedorn goes so far as to suggest that § 9.01 "constitutes the 'exclusive judicial remedy' applicable to this claim." No statute, however, can circumscribe the constitutional jurisdiction of the Wisconsin Supreme Court to hear this (or any) case as an original action. "

Aren't we full of ourselves.

And while Trump's court challenges made a mockery of the whole idea of "election integrity," with historians warning how it actually undermines the process, Bradley doubles down on delegitimizing it: 

Bradley: "Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. The integrity of every election will be tarnished by the public's mistrust. "Only . . . the supreme court can provide the necessary clarity … risks perpetuating violations of the law by those entrusted to follow it. I dissent.

Bradley then hung out some old laundry one more time despite the fact the Green Party filed "too late," something Bradley oddly "felt" was allowable to help Trump:

The majority … declined to hear a claim that the WEC unlawfully kept the Green Party's candidates for President and Vice President off of the ballot, ostensibly because the majority felt the candidates' claims were brought "too late."

More of the story in pictures...

Conservative State Supreme Court brings certainty to more Dysfunction and Infighting.

It's always just a little scary when our authoritarian "friends" on the right promise us harmony and togetherness with them in control. Gone would be all those nasty disagreements and "leftist" attempts to destroy the country. With Republicans in charge, we can now return confidence and certainty to our legal system.

And so it is with our State Supreme Court, often considered a beacon of justice and collegiality, or so we're being told by conservative Chief Justice Roggensack. Now that majority republican politicians managed to put their party in charge of the court, we'll finally have peace and civility. But as the headline pictured here demonstrates, nothing could be further from the truth, and things are only getting worse. jsonline:

"Creative Destruction?"

(Moderate) Justice Crooks says (Republican) Chief Justice Roggensack threatened to throw justices off cases: Days before three state Supreme Court justices skipped ceremonies to admit new lawyers to the bar, Justice N. Patrick Crooks accused newly elected Chief Justice Patience Roggensack of breaking court rules by threatening to throw him off a case without any authority. Crooks and another justice also contended Roggensack had violated court rules by scheduling a conference to discuss three cases without the permission of all seven justices, emails between the justices show.

That prompted a strongly worded reply from Crooks on May 17. "The closed conference that you have scheduled for May 18, 2015, is a violation of our rules, since it was not on the court's calendar, and the unanimous consent required has not been received," he wrote. "Despite that, you apparently have decided to proceed. I object.

"If we do not have your votes to consider at conference, the opinions will show any justice who does not send in his or her vote for consideration at decision conference as having withdrawn from the case," Roggensack wrote.

The exchanges are the latest sign of turmoil on a court that has drawn national attention for infighting. Their disputes have been on public display in recent weeks because of a fight over who should run the court.

Thankfully the courts liberal voices won't be able to disrupt the republican agenda anymore.