Bruce Murphy
Murphy’s Law

The Mystery of Rebecca Bradley

Who exactly is she? And why didn’t Walker vet his choice for Supreme Court?

By - Mar 15th, 2016 01:17 pm
Sign-up for the Urban Milwaukee daily email
Rebecca Bradley

Rebecca Bradley

The enigma that is Rebecca Bradley begins with the first public sighting of her, when her name was still Grassl and the 15-year-old wrote a angry, heartfelt letter published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. It was 1986 and her father had recently been terminated from his position as purchasing manager at a Milwaukee company, and her letter asked: “How far does suffering and hardship have to go before it destroys a person? How much hell does a person have to go through before it ends?”

The hell her father was going through included “endless negative responses to job applications from various companies…My parents must now find other means to support two children in college, one in private high school, and another ready to get married and start a new life.”

Faced with this situation who did young Rebecca blame?: “unjust” employers, yes, but she also noted the lack of aid from government for her family, and slapped Democratic Gov. Tony Earl for saying “Wisconsin is conquering unemployment.”

Five years later, Grassl’s anger flashed again. Serving as a senator on Marquette’s student government, “Bradley slammed down her nameplate and threatened to resign during a discussion of whether the university should add a multicultural course requirement,” as Scott Bauer of the Associated Press reported.

A year later, Grassl’s anger flashed again at Democrats. As One Wisconsin Now documented, she wrote to Marquette’s student newspaper that Americans were “either totally stupid or entirely evil” for electing President Bill Clinton.”Either you condone drug use, homosexuality, AIDS-producing sex, adultery and murder and are therefore a bad person, or you didn’t know that he supports abortion on demand and socialism, which means you are dumb,” Grassl wrote.

She also condemned gay people as “queers” who engage in “abnormal sex” that leads to AIDS and “degenerates who basically commit suicide through their behavior.”

Bradley has issued an apology for her statements, saying they “are not reflective of my worldview,” without explaining how or when her views changed.

Bradley, after all, was never very involved in politics. Her degree from MU, received in 1993, was in Business Administration and Business Economics. She got her law degree from UW-Madison in 1996, and during that time was an “extern” with conservative Judge John L. Coffey. After graduation, she served a few years with Hinshaw & Culbertson mostly representing physicians and lawyers in malpractice cases.

Then came 12 years immersed in business: She served four years at – Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek handling Commercial and Information Technology Litigation and Transactions, followed by three years as corporate counsel at Red Prairie Corp and then five years at Whyte Hirschboeck handling Commercial, Technology and Intellectual Property Transactions and Litigation. Her list of publications and speeches during this time almost all involved e-commerce, internet law, data security and other highly technical matters.

Amid this intense focus on technical business issues, it seems unlikely Bradley was discussing politics much with colleagues. Did her personal life lead her to change her views?

She married Gordon Bradley, a Milwaukee police detective considerably older than her in 1996, the same year she graduated from law school. They divorced 8 years later but Bradley has told the press they had separated several years earlier than this. Precisely when is unclear.

Rebecca Bradley had met J. Andrew Bednall, the chief operating officer of Whyte Hirschboeck after she was hired there in February 2000, and the two began a romantic relationship that Bradley has said they broke off in November 2002, though they continued to date each other non-exclusively. In November 2003, Bednall left the firm, according to court documents and Bradley left two months later, but her attorney told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel their departures were unrelated to the relationship.

The newspaper’s story called this an “extra-marital affair,” while Gordon Bradley has claimed he was then separated from his wife, without providing any dates.

Did these experiences soften Bradley’s hard-and-fast moral lines? It seems not. In 2006, she wrote a column supporting a proposal that would have allowed pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives based on their religious beliefs. Opponents, she argued, elevated “women’s convenience over pharmacists’ objections to being a party to murder” — the “murder” by contraceptives that “may cause the death of a conceived, unborn child by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus.”  She still seemed the angry conservative and a position calling birth control murder was hardly mainstream.

Meantime Bradley had joined the conservative legal group, the Federalist Society, and the Republican National Lawyers Association. Still, she doesn’t show up as a donor to any politicians, until March 2012, when she donated $250 to Walker. Nine months later he appointed her to vacant Milwaukee County Circuit Court position.

What led him to choose Bradley? Bauer theorizes that it was Jim Villa, a longtime Walker loyalist and his chief of staff for five years, who remembered Bradley, who served in student government at Marquette with Villa. But Villa denies having suggested the judicial appointment to Walker.

Another possibility is that Bradley got to know the Walker family as a neighbor. In 2006, as my colleague Michael Horne has reported, Bradley bought a home just ten doors down from Walker’s home. The purchase by Bradley is a head scratcher. She already had a a 1,218 square foot, two-story, 2 bedroom condo on Milwaukee’s Lower East Side, and was single. Yet she bought a second home, a 3,464 square foot, 9-room Colonial Revival in Wauwatosa. When asked why, Bradley’s spokesperson Luke Mertz did not respond.

One Republican insider tells me it was Tonette Walker who pushed for Bradley’s appointment. The same source says it was attorney Tracey Klein of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren who promoted Bradley to both Tonette and conservative radio host Charlie Sykes, who’s been a big supporter of Bradley. Klein and her husband Rick Klein of Aurora Health Care have been big donors to Walker and the governor recently appointed Tracey Klein to the UW Board of Regents.

Klein, however, tells me she only met Bradley briefly on two occasions: “She came to our firm for a meet and greet, as do many judicial candidates. Afterward I gave her a modest contribution.” Sykes, meanwhile, responded via email to say he “never spoke to Tracey about RB.”

All of which, if true, leaves the question, why was Walker so high on Bradley that he three times appointed her to a vacant position, first to circuit court, then state Court of Appeals, and then the Wisconsin Supreme Court? He was so confident of her that his staff apparently never vetted her to check her record at Marquette University — despite all the problems Walker himself has faced over his run for student government and later withdrawal from MU without getting a degree.

Bradley, it seems, is very good at promoting herself. Despite the connection to Walker, she was able to gain the support of some Democrats, as I wrote back in March 2013. Her Milwaukee address might have helped in giving the impression of her as an urbanite (just as the Tosa address near Walker might have helped her with Republicans). Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele endorsed Bradley for circuit court, saying “she is compassionate about people and is making a positive impact on our community in Children’s Court.” I’m told they became good friends after that, but when asked to comment about this, his campaign spokesperson Tia Torhorst said Abele “was as shocked and offended by Justice Bradley’s writings as everyone else,” adding that “Chris has been an active supporter and leader on LGBTQ issues.”

Meantime, even as Bradley courted Democrats, the Republican insider tells me she became very friendly with longtime Walker campaign strategist R. J. Johnson, who’s also been a consultant for the Wisconsin Club for Growth, which spent heavily on ads supporting Bradley in her run for Circuit Court.

When asked if he would have appointed Bradley had he known of her student writings, the governor offered a non-answer to Bauer, saying “It’s really irrelevant,” and adding a tepid sounding-endorsement: “it’s right now up to the voters.”

At this point no one seems to want to acknowledge promoting Bradley, and she herself has done everything to distance herself from her prior statements. But if she’s not the person she once was, who exactly is she now and how has she changed? Having now reviewed her entire history, I have no idea.

Categories: Murphy's Law, Politics

52 thoughts on “Murphy’s Law: The Mystery of Rebecca Bradley”

  1. dudemeister says:

    Jeez, Murphy is a brutal attack dog, even when there is very little to go on.

    I had never before heard of this lady, but all the article served to do was to make me think she is a regular human being. People are quite capable of changing their opinions; no, they don’t have to make public how or why they did so. Regardless of her reasoning, she said her stance has changed. Perhaps she could explicitly vocalize her current position, but to color her a scary unknown is a bit extreme.

    Unrelated, but if you’re writing an article painting someone in a negative light, it would be wise not to start with a tidbit that makes them instantly relatable, if not pitiable.

  2. Vincent Hanna says:

    You had never heard of Rebecca Bradley before reading this story?

  3. Steven Blackwood says:

    As troubling as her columns at Marquette were, one can forgive them as the typical ravings that college students are always prone to.
    However, her 2006 writing about contraception is the opinion of a mature woman and seems of a piece to her 1992 columns, indicating she hadn’t really changed.
    The current smear commercials against Kloppenberg, while not a product of her own campaign, seems to align Bradley with the Willie Horton school of campaigning. The only thing missing is that the subject of the ad wasn’t black. I can’t believe they neglected to make him a little “swarthy”.

  4. Bruce Murphy says:

    dudemeister: actually I specifically opened with that anecdote because it does make her sympathetic and opens some window into who she might be and where her views might have come from. It appears it convinced you she is a regular human being. the goal here was to try offer some clarity on a candidate who at this point seems very enigmatic.

  5. wisconsin conservative digest says:

    Bruce, you are becomign almsot comical. I know that in 4th grade she it the nun with a spit ball, put soem sandurs under little Janes chair, put gum under a table in Webb’s, awore a a jer k that propostioned her, c..ed soemne cheeshead___TWICE, in a vicious manner.

  6. Frank Galvan says:

    Doltmeister read that column and concluded that BRUCE MURPHY was the “brutal attack dog?”
    WDC: don’t enter any Spelling Bees or…try any stand up.

  7. Wis. Conservative Digest says:

    This post is so below Bruce I coudl nto beleiv it and not worth time to go back and correct. Stupid, imey immatrue psot

  8. Willie Ray says:

    Thanks, WDC. It’s good to know that even conservative homophobes and antiabortionist were once children.

  9. tom says:

    Thanks for the background on Rebecca Bradley. All I really had to know is that she was appointed to three positions by our low-life despicable governor. Her college rantings and 2006 writings only serve to reinforce that she is not qualified to serve on WI Supreme Court.

  10. Kurt says:

    Wow. I have to agree with the lack of substance in this opinion piece. So she’s a born and bred conservative, so what? She hasn’t said or done anything that I wouldn’t expect a conservative to say or do.

    Calling people stupid for voting for Clinton? My goodness. The anti-Walker, anti-Bush crowd never uttered any such thing.

    I have friends (honest to goodness FRIENDS!) that have changed their views on things in 20 years. Yeah, what she said was wrong then and is even more wrong now, but to paint it as being completely out of line with conservatives in the mid 90’s, c’mon. She was right to apologize, and the notion she owes anyone an explanation on how or why her views changed is silly at best.

    Six paragraphs on how she came to public life, all of which uncovers the excitement of tomato-rice soup. The shock and surprise that political insiders talk and name drop… Bruce must have been grasping his pearls at the mere suggestion. What is the expectation here?

    Seriously, I love this site and Bruce’s writing generally. But as the kids say, this is pretty weak sauce.

  11. Bea says:

    Don’t we have WAY more than enough extreme right-wingers running things in Wisconsin state government already? Dale Schultz, the last moderate standing, thought so.
    OMG, she equated contraception to murder in 2006 and in the earlier writings had NO sympathy for people dying of a disease that wasn’t fully understood. She’s a mean girl not suited for jurisprudence.

  12. Vincent Hanna says:

    I was at Marquette in the ’90s and had some conservative friends and no one ever said or wrote anything like she did. Not even close. Also, the “people said mean things about Walker” defense is a pretty weak one. All of this will be meaningless three weeks from today when she loses and goes back to private practice.

  13. 2fs says:

    Conservative defenders are missing the point – which isn’t that Bradley’s done some nasty things (some perhaps excusable through youth – although I know that when I was a college student, anyone speaking that kind of crap was widely reviled, even by conservatives (I’m ten years older than Bradley) – but that it’s a mystery how she got where she is. Why is Walker so high on her? They were neighbors – one wonders if Tonette Walker has any reason to wish she hadn’t become one.

  14. CindyV says:

    When I was in college, I was pro-choice on the abortion issue, marched for women’s rights in Washington, D.C., was pro-LGBT, and a Kennedy democrat. Now in retirement, I’m still pro-choice, for women’s rights, pro-LGBT, and still a democrat (Clinton,now). I’m much older than Rebecca Bradley but the core of my beliefs have not changed since college. Maybe she really hasn’t changed since then, either. Maybe Bradley’s the same nasty, vile hater she was back then.

  15. wisconsin conservative digest says:

    Cindy we have known her for years and so have many friends she is a very smart, tough, nice person to take an on sla
    ught lik this.

  16. wisconsin conservative digest says:

    Over the last 50 years I have treated, in hospitals, nursing homes, pharmacies, apt. I have worked with every types of persons you can imagine with loving care. Hired everyone you can imagine all colors etc. Saved lives, including preemies 2 lbs or so. Watched them live and sometimes die I coudl never murder babies. Abortionists are worse the Mengele, Khan.

  17. Vincent Hanna says:

    Yes if only we could return to the good old days when women threw themselves down a flight of steps or used a coat hanger. I’m sure you miss those days. You could pretend abortions didn’t exist.

  18. Bruce Thompson says:

    People can change their views as they mature, but there is no credible evidence that Bradley has done so. The burden is on her, not her critics, especially because her views as a young woman were so nasty.

    I think this episode helps confirm the impression that Walker chooses people by ideology rather than competence.

  19. wisconsin conservative digest says:

    I miss 50 million babies, mainly black, who you eugenic racist killed.

  20. Vincent Hanna says:

    So you must visit high schools every day to hand out condoms. You must support free birth control for women nationwide. You must be the most pro-contraception individual in America. That would mean you strongly disagree with Bradley. All her beliefs would do is lead to more unintended pregnancies and abortions.

  21. wisconsin conservative digest says:

    Amazing, in 1950s before BC pills, before legal abortions we had far less of a problem than we have none where the racists slaughter innocent black babies daily.

  22. Marie says:

    Hey, readers who think Bruce was hard on Ms. Juris-Prudence… He may have earned high marks from Ms. Bradley for not mentioning one of the skeevier chapters in her bio. She unleashed her fiercest anger and adjectives at the Journal Sentinel for daring to report on the judge’s questionable judgment. JS wrote about how she chose to rep Mr. Bednall, her non-exclusive boyfriend by then, in his custody case over his 16-year-old son. The son and his mother were not thrilled at having Dad’s new gal (or one of them) showing up with him, so they filed a complaint.

    A judge ruled that Bradley could indeed fairly rep her lover, her only duty of an attorney. The discomfort of a teenage son (and his mother) were not an issue legally–or to Ms. Compassion. So Bradley was within the letter of that law but what of Family Values? Or just plain decency?

    And what of the first rule of HR—Don’t Sleep with the Boss, especially if you’re already married and a good Divine Savior Catholic girl militantly against birth control to boot?

    None of this passes the smell test and all sounds a bit degenerate. And how did this broaden Bradley’s world view? A couple years later she wrote her “Birth Control is Murder” manifesto. Her motto seems to be, “Do as I say, not as I do.” She has every right to have a messy personal life—but not to rule from the highest state court about whether others can exercise their constitutional reproductive rights (which Scalia-revering Bradley might argue can’t be a right– because birth control is never mentioned in the Constitution!).

  23. Rich says:

    I thought that Mike McCabe made a salient point: http://www.bluejeannation.com/how-to-know-if-shes-truly-sorry

  24. Vincent Hanna says:

    What are you talking about WCD? “Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year.” https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html

    In 1967 it’s estimated that there were 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions. In 1930 nearly 3,000 women died from attempting an illegal or self-induced abortion. Even in 1965 illegal abortion accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. So your BS about a U.S. where abortion somehow didn’t exist is just that, BS.

  25. wisconsin conservative digest says:

    Boy thre are really some sleazy people on this site, concerned about the dating habits of a young gril and pushing black kids abortions to limit the “undesirables” as Sanger said. Bruce this is really one of the low points of your journalsitic life.
    It is almost funny, but mostly sad, a bunch of left Donald Trumps.

  26. Vincent Hanna says:

    I don’t know what any of that rambling means. Too many spelling errors and non-sequitur’s. From what little I can make out, you don’t actually address anything I say. Instead, you pass judgment on people (just like Bradley!) and make odd comparisons to Trump.

  27. Vincent Hanna says:

    OK let’s get back to Bradley. I’m sure some here know more about this than I do. Can a person really develop much of a track record in as short a period of time as she’s been a judge? Can they demonstrate judicial and not political qualifications in a year or two? How many substantive cases do they preside over in that period of time? Does she even have a record to scrutinize that would shed some light on her current thinking to see if she’s really changed at all? Or is her lack of a record (and rigid political views) exactly her appeal?

  28. Kurt says:

    I can’t help but feel there is some Polyanna-ish naivete here that Walker would choose to elevate and nominate a candidate for the Supreme Court (one that has to be voted in to office, mind you) that might appeal to the base, and have the chops to potentially win an election. Of course it’s calculated, it’s politics!

    As to it being incumbent on her to prove she’s changed her views, how does one do that? She’s a conservative. She’s not going to be in favor of gay marriage or abortion, much like the majority of conservatives in politics in 2016. Do you require her to come around on these issues to the degree that we would prefer? I just don’t understand what is expected here.

    You have to be pretty far in your own bubble to not recognize that a lot of people felt the way she felt in the mid 90’s. A lot of people still feel that way today (see -> D. Trump).

  29. BILL SWEENEY says:

    Another angle regarding the nomination of Rebecca Bradley is to ask what positive qualifications does she possess that would suggest to voters that she should be on the State Supreme Court. Surely, surely, there are other candidates in the state of Wisconsin who are far more qualified than her. This begs the question then as to why didn’t they run for the seat?

  30. Alene Bidwell says:

    How do you know Walker didn’t vet Bradley and then appointed the exact person he wanted to the court. The one who holds the views he and his cohorts hold. The one who does not care about the living adult. The one who only cares about the unborn until they are born. Once born, they are on their own regardless of how difficult their life will be.

  31. Sheila Ashley says:

    Am I the only one who didn’t see a mention of Black Babies being aborted in this article except by the WCD? Am I the only one not offended by how disingenuous the WCD and conservatives are for appearing to concern themselves with Black lives being aborted while promoting jurists with questionable morals and qualifications to preside on benches and dispense justice against “just us” by handing down harsher sentences. Am I the only one to recognize that Black men and women who were deprived of full and impartial participation in the American dream across the country and those who live in death penalty states are incarcerated and killed at higher rates by these same conservative right to lifers who cater to law enforcement for their support during election season? Am I the only person reading this who challenge the duplicity of conservatives who embrace an ideology that espouses right to Black life until the conservatives assume positions of authority where they can make decisions about feeding clothing, hiring, purchase homes and other goods and in an “aha moment, Black Lives no longer Matter? Am I the only one who see the hypocrisy in in the WCD’s position and feel condescended by them because during elections they buy ads on Black radio using Black voiceovers saying these things and think that we are too stupid to know that the ad buys are paid for Americans for Prosperity, Club for Growth and other conservatives who pretend to court the Black vote, block the Black vote suppress the Black vote and steal elections that they can’t win fairly. I hope that everyone remembers that the last Supreme Court election that Judge Kloppenburg won was stolen from her by supporters of Justice Prosser and vote her in instead of Bradley. I hope that I am not the only one who remembers.

  32. Marie says:

    Bill, two other highly qualified candidates did run for the seat and split 55% of the vote.

    WCD, the discussion of Bradley’s “dating habits” related to a 30-something married woman, not a “young girl.” Bradley is reportedly a member of the St. Thomas More Society, an extremely staunch Catholic group that opposes birth control, abortion, and sex outside of marriage.

    Our American society now allows people “date” and marry whomever they choose. However, some people, including Bradley would like to severely limit those options, including by removing access to basic birth-control protections and calling it “murder” This was most recently as a 35-year-old woman with a history of self-proclaimed “non-exclusive” dating.

  33. Willie Ray says:

    OMG! Totally amazing that WCD calls the mostly coherent contributors to this page “sleazy;” a sordid, corrupt, and immoral bunch. Presumably WCD is not included under this label. I’ll be kind and suggest that WCD belongs under a different label called “Knucklehead.”

  34. Vincent Hanna says:

    Kurt I am saying that while an undergrad at Marquette, with friends who were members of the College Republicans, I never heard anyone say anything remotely similar to what Bradley said. It’s hardly a strong defense either. Even if a lot of conservatives did feel that way in 1992, it hardly makes what she said any less abhorrent.

    Did Walker really not believe that her ’90s writings would be an issue 20 years later? Did he read those words and think “yeah whatever no big deal the base won’t care she’ll still win?” Or did he honestly not know because she wasn’t vetted at all. Does he come across well in either scenario?

  35. David Nelson says:

    WCD: It’s hard to know what to think when reading your comments. The incomplete thoughts, the poor sentence construction, the blazing anger. I’d swear you drink an awful lot. That’s not so much a personal attack as it is just pure amazement at the incoherent nature of your communication. If you have strong beliefs and want to convey them clearly to other Internet users, isn’t it worth the effort to be in a good frame of mind to do so?

  36. Kurt says:

    Vincent,
    Yeah, I wouldn’t say I had friends that said those things. But I certainly recall hearing, seeing, reading similar sentiments. Yes someone that would say that would not be a part of my circle, but I know they existed, and existed in numbers that I don’t think it’s shocking someone with conservative political beliefs trying to make a name for themselves might write something like that while in college. Do I agree with it on any level? No. Am I shocked by it? Not at all.

    Vetting… for a state office… in an election with likely less than 50% of the population voting. I mean, how deep in that process are they realistically going to get? Is this really hurting her severely anyway? I bet the Sykes support outweighs the 1992 statements. If there wasn’t an intriguing mayoral, county exec, and presidential primary race on the same ballot, how many would even show up? This race is only close because of the other races on the ticket. This state thought Gableman was a suitable SC justice! Why would we be surprised by this from Bradley?

    I hope she loses, this state can’t afford the damage already done, and certainly can’t go any further right. My bottom line is this, I don’t see a whole lot here that is either surprising, or likely to sway whatever swing voters that might exist out there. So to that end, I still find this article relatively lacking in substance.

  37. podman says:

    Good article. Until recently not much known about Rebecca Bradley and for the sake of the voter more info is important, especially for an undecided or independent voter. Met Kloppenburg in Ashland and had the opportunity to talk with her at a casual “meet and greet.” She has the credentials and is willing to serve the state’s highest court in a respectful/impartial manner. Nothing I have read about Bradley would suggest she has the qualifications nor would she be respectful of other jurists and petioners or impartial .The last thing we need is an angry undiplomatic person as judge for 10 years.

  38. Virginia Small says:

    Kurt,
    I agree that none of this information is “surprising” but Bruce did ferret out new info about a sitting Supreme Court justice/candidate. It’s all relevant, even if only political junkies pay close attention. I think these things matter to voters, especially Independents and moderate Republicans.

    With the governor and Legislature’s success in limiting access to public records, including about people holding elected and appointed positions, I’m grateful for anyone doing actual investigative journalism.

    I’m also curious about how and why Chris Abele and Eric Von have been such effusive Rebecca Bradley fans. Abele as recently as nine months ago was calling Bradley a close personal friend. Both spoke at her swearing-in for appellate court. Abele has tried to distance himself on the gay-hating stuff recently, but her recent views on birth-control-as-murder have long been known and he has not called them out, despite his family foundation’s longtime funding of Planned Parenthood.

    I’m all for bipartisanship, but that usually entails finding common ground, not taking a blind eye to extreme positions that prevent any chance of collaboration. For example, how would Bradley, or someone with similar views on birth control, advocate to reduce teen pregnancy if birth control is equated with murder? These “world views” have consequences beyond spirited cocktail banter.

  39. Vincent Hanna says:

    Bringing up Gableman is interesting. How much was he vetted? I don’t remember. I know he ran that nasty ad but that obviously didn’t hurt him. Hasn’t there been a huge change in media coverage of races like state supreme court since then (to coalesce with the increase in partisanship)? I think times have changed a lot since then.

    I am not really shocked by it either. I am not expressing outrage because I am shocked, but because the things she said deserve to be showcased and condemned.

    Dismiss vetting all you want, but Walker is a very unpopular governor right now, and Bradley will need much more than the Sykes vote to have any chance at winning.

  40. Vincent Hanna says:

    Yeah Abele’s support is puzzling. I believe he is sincere in his support of LGBT issues and reproductive rights, and he must have been aware of her views on at least the latter, so it’s strange. Was he just trying to curry favor with Walker.

  41. AG says:

    I don’t understand how people can say that her college writings could possibly be dismissed for her youth but say that proof that she hasn’t changed can be drawn from her decision on the pharmacists being forced to provide BC. The issues of tolerance/acceptance for the LGBT community is not at all related to views on religious freedoms or abortion. I an conclusively say that someone can be supportive of LGBT issues and the community while also being in favor of religious freedom and be pro-life. Especially in the case of LGBT and Religious freedom, both are centered around personal liberties.

    Vincent Hanna, to address comment #25, those numbers are completely BS. Not only did a founder of NARAL admit that their stats were made up, he said he found no reason to correct them. On top of that, the numbers are larger than the total numbers of all abortions post roe vs wade and the total deaths are higher ALL deaths related to childbirth. That is obviously not possible. Did you notice they don’t cite their sources for those estimates in the link you provided?

    Anyway, a person has to decide if they think someone can change during that time, if so did they actually change and if not, do they administer the law in a way that follows the letter of the law without making decisions on personal beliefs. All valid questions for the voters.

  42. Bill Sell says:

    Vincent Hanna: Michael Gableman was elected (not appointed) to the Wis Supreme Court. I believe that means that *we* did the vetting.

  43. Vincent Hanna says:

    AG you are basically Troy Newman on this particular issue, and I trust you as much as I do him.

    Of course “Religious freedom” and the LGBT community are related, such as when the former is used as a way to discriminate against the latter.

  44. Seems to be a lot of dedeitfulness in her. And a ton of false piety and sanctimonious behavior, which she projects onto anyone critcizing her. A truly amazing lackof self awareness.

  45. AG says:

    Vincent, don’t take my word for it, check it out for yourself instead of using an affiliate of planned parenthood for “data.”

    Yes, there can be conflicts between various civil rights that need to be addressed through due process. However, that still does not discount my point that people can support both freedom of religion and the LGBT community.

  46. Vincent Hanna says:

    AG they are a far more reliable and trustworthy source than an anti-choice extremist. In fact I’ve seen conservatives cite them when the data can be used to bolster a point they want to make.

  47. JW says:

    It’s plain to see Rebecca Bradley has some hate and anger issues that she needs to deal with and she should not have anything to do with decisions that are required from a judge.

  48. tim haeringt says:

    Bruce, maybe Walker saw “Bradley” and assumed as I did some relationship to the Foundation. TO me, on the face of it, I thought this was Elizabeth Montgomery vs. Margaret Hamilton. But it turns out, it’s not MOntgomery but a young Agnes MOorehead.

  49. Formerly Catholic says:

    Sometimes the answer is so obvious it isn’t obvious. In this case, seek through open records requests evidence of meetings during which Catholic leadership expressed a desire for extreme appointments to the court to rule in their favor on issues relating to the personhood amendment (abortion & birth control pills), gay marriage, transgender issues, school vouchers, etc. Check for meetings in which Robin Vos is in attendance with Church bishops and compare that to the timeline showing when Catholic bishops and priests publicly stated that they would preach politics from the pulpit in Wisconsin in defiance of the law prohibiting churches from political advocacy and lobbying. Look for a direct correlation in the timeline.

    Walker got the Catholic vote to put him in (and keep him in) office.

    Bradley on the court is…how do you say?…quid pro quo.

  50. JULIE GORDON says:

    I couldn’t find anything about Bradley ever having any children. If so, what qualified her to serve and make educated decisions in Children’s Court?
    Considering she was married for 8 years and also had an affair with a married man, who was able to father a child, I’m wondering how she was able to prevent a pregnancy without using birth control or “unsafe” condoms.
    Her true colors showed when, “she chose to rep Mr. Bednall, her non-exclusive boyfriend by then, in his custody case over his 16-year-old son.” How callous and unprofessional!!
    Tonette Walker better keep an eye on those two!! It is going to be a long, cold, scary 10 years for Wisconsin.

  51. wisconsin conservative digest says:

    Julie,that is the msg incredibly stupid entry have seen on this site.

  52. David Nelson says:

    wcd: In terms of Julie Gordon’s comments, while I don’t believe that someone must have been a parent to effectively administer services related to children, I realize it may help. Mostly, we need to have some memory of what it was like to be a child, as all adults were once so, and to understand which part of the adult experience is most useful for proceeding. What is not as easy is to imagine the circumstances of those who come before the court, and to assess the likely impact of any one course of judicial action.

    Bradley does not appear to possess much in the way of empathy, proportion, or moderation. She has however spoken judgmentally in various capacities while spending time on this planet. This may be her strongest qualification to be a judge – her willingness to judge others. It is also among her greatest weaknesses.

    How does this relate to what Gordon said above? Well… If Bradley is so willing to judge others while possessing little empathy or understanding, and to go so far as to judge others while outside of the courtroom, then she herself is fair game for speculation, criticism, and indelicacy. Note that any one moment of sympathy or kindness from a powerful individual will not rescue that person’s otherwise stagnant character.

    The greater problem is not just one of partisanship or simple disagreement. Bradley and others of similarly crippled ethical capacity act without respect for institution, individual, or community, with the exceptions of those institutions, individuals, and communities which are most important to their personal economy and emotional preferfences. This willingness to behave badly is one of the most serious problems facing Wisconsin, United States and the world.

    So what if Gordon brought up the personal life of Bradley. It is no worse than what Bradley has done. In fact it is a great deal less bad, and more proportional.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *