Prosser is charged

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Prosser is charged

Postby Meade » Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:42 am

lukpac wrote:How would you even know if you came to "the exact correct conclusion" or if there was bias or deceit if the records aren't public?

Trust me. I just know.

gargantua wrote:I'm trying to wrap my mind around the idea of recusal due to witnessing what actually occurred. It never occurred to me that hearing someone else's version of an event was better than witnessing it.

Sec. 757.19(2)(b) provides that "[a]ny judge shall disqualify himself or herself from any civil or criminal action or proceeding when one of the following situations occurs: . . . [w]hen a judge is a party or a material witness." The Judicial Code contains a similar provision. This seems to make it quite clear that only Justice Patrick Crooks can sit on this case and that means that the Court can't act. Wisconsin Constitution Art VII sec. 4(1) provides that "[a]ny 4 justices shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of the court's business." (via Blaska)

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21616
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Prosser is charged

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:54 am

Meade wrote:
lukpac wrote:How would you even know if you came to "the exact correct conclusion" or if there was bias or deceit if the records aren't public?

Trust me. I just know.

Knowledge or belief? If knowledge, then I guess the records aren't secret.

Anyways, why should we trust you?

Meade
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Prosser is charged

Postby Meade » Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:56 am

Does anyone know if it is true that 4 members of the Judicial Commission signed a Walker recall petition?

Meade
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Prosser is charged

Postby Meade » Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:59 am

Henry Vilas wrote:Anyways, why should we trust you?

Because I use my real name, not a fake screen name.
Anyways, trust but verify. Someone once said that.

lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3365
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison
Contact:

Re: Prosser is charged

Postby lukpac » Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:07 pm

Meade wrote:Because I use my real name, not a fake screen name.


And that matters how, exactly?

ilikebeans
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3064
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:23 am

Re: Prosser is charged

Postby ilikebeans » Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:31 pm

Meade wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:Anyways, why should we trust you?

Because I use my real name, not a fake screen name.

Before he abandoned the Forum with his tail between his legs, Blaska proved the exact opposite true more times than I can count.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12946
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Prosser is charged

Postby snoqueen » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:45 pm

Meade wrote:Does anyone know if it is true that 4 members of the Judicial Commission signed a Walker recall petition?


Check 'em out on the true-the-vote site. My own research suggested about 50% of the people who signed are listed there, and that's close enough, right?

sallybell
Senior Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:58 pm

Re: Prosser is charged

Postby sallybell » Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:17 pm

Meade wrote:Does anyone know if it is true that 4 members of the Judicial Commission signed a Walker recall petition?


Does anyone know if it is true that all members of the Judicial Commission hate puppies and kittens?

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12946
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Prosser is charged

Postby snoqueen » Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:43 pm

Is it true they eat their young?

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Prosser is charged

Postby Stebben84 » Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:34 pm

So this strikes me as a bit messed up:

Prosser on Wednesday asked that Justice Patrick Crooks recuse himself from the case. Prosser has already asked that Justices Pat Roggensack, Bradley and Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson not sit on the case.

If three or more justices agree to recuse themselves, the case against Prosser would likely end due to a lack of quorum. Counting Prosser, there are seven justices on the Supreme Court.

Read more: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/ ... z1t4gN3ONG


So the moral of the story is if you want to attack another judge, do it in the presence of many other judges, have them recuse themselves and case closed. This seems really screwed up no matter which side of the aisle you're from.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12946
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Prosser is charged

Postby snoqueen » Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:52 pm

The way I understood it, Judge Crooks is the only one who was not present for the altercation.

Why should he recuse himself, then?

rrnate
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3672
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 6:33 pm
Location: Madison's Corporate Underbelly
Contact:

Re: Prosser is charged

Postby rrnate » Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:56 pm

snoqueen wrote:The way I understood it, Judge Crooks is the only one who was not present for the altercation.

Why should he recuse himself, then?


Seems plausible that Prosser has had run-ins with Crooks as well, right? I mean, at this point, the record shows he's not just an asshole once in a great while. You know, like Meade. Trust me, I know.

Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3458
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Prosser is charged

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:20 pm

snoqueen wrote:The way I understood it, Judge Crooks is the only one who was not present for the altercation.

Why should he recuse himself, then?


Crooks was present when Prosser called the chief justice a bitch, apparently that somehow ties in to the case in someway...

At least that's what I thought I saw in the JSOnline article on this that I am pretty sure read this morning but can no longer find.

Meade
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Prosser is charged

Postby Meade » Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:38 pm

snoqueen wrote:The way I understood it, Judge Crooks is the only one who was not present for the altercation.

Why should he recuse himself, then?

Who said he should?

ADDED:
Prosser contended that none of the other justices, including Crooks, should sit on the case. He said Crooks could be influenced by his discussions with Bradley, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson and detectives from the Dane County Sheriff's Office who investigated the altercation.

Read more: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/ ... z1t66GzEh1

I agree.
Last edited by Meade on Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Prosser is charged

Postby Stebben84 » Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:07 pm

Meade wrote:
snoqueen wrote:The way I understood it, Judge Crooks is the only one who was not present for the altercation.

Why should he recuse himself, then?

Who said he should?


Uh, read the quote. Prosser did.


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests