When the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided to accept the first of two cases regarding the gerrymandered districting maps, Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote the dissenting opinion. It would be an understatement to say that her opinion lacked in professionalism, much less maturity. Her opinion read, in part:
REBECCA GRASSL BRADLEY, J. (dissenting). The outcome of this original action has been predetermined. Nevertheless, the majority forces the parties to expend considerable resources—including taxpayer money—to respond to a petition everyone knows will be granted by Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Dallet, Jill Karofsky, and Janet Protasiewicz. Despite receiving nearly $10 million from the Democrat Party of Wisconsin1 and declaring the maps "rigged,"2 Protasiewicz has not recused herself from the case. These four justices will adopt new maps to shift power away from Republicans and bestow an electoral advantage for Democrat candidates, fulfilling one of Protasiewicz's many promises to the principal funder of her campaign.
To understand just how breathtakingly hypocritical this is, we need to look at how Bradley even got to be a Justice in the first place.
from Latest articles from Crooks and Liars
via Click me for Details
No comments:
Post a Comment