Rebecca Bradley’s Last 48 Hours Have Been Spin Not Substance
Still No Response on Meeting with LGBT Community
MADISON – U.S. Representative Mark Pocan (WI-02) has yet to receive a response from Justice Rebecca Bradley after he extended an invitation to her to come and meet with the LGBT community and those living with HIV/AIDS, as well as others she targeted in a series of public writings. In an interview with The Capital Times earlier this week, Bradley indicated that she would be willing to do this meeting.
“Bradley’s comments over the last 48 hours have been purely spin, not substance,” said Rep. Mark Pocan. “She seems to be throwing darts at a dart board trying to see what sticks. For example, it’s been more than 500 days since the WI Supreme Court allowed same-sex marriages to proceed, yet Bradley has not performed a single same-sex marriage, even though her campaign insists she is open to it. Many Judges in Milwaukee were rushing to volunteer to perform them. If she really has had a mosaic of experiences that changed her worldview why hasn’t one of those been performing a same-sex marriage ceremony? The problem for Bradley is that she can’t point to anything she has written or made public in the last two decades that show a change of heart and the people of Wisconsin deserve the truth. That is why I am baffled she will not directly respond to our invitation.”
Bradley also mentioned on Monday that her public writings were a result of her being upset about the outcome of the 1992 presidential election, but two of the pieces were published in February of 1992, almost 10 months earlier, indicating a consistent worldview, rather than something written in the heat of the moment. In the last several days, she has insinuated that attending an event by the LGBT rights group Fair Wisconsin, as a candidate attempting to get votes for Milwaukee Circuit Court, is an example of her change of heart.
That only begs another question Bradley should answer for the public: Is she more concerned about alienating constituents and groups that are extremely active spending large sums of dark money to support her and have proven ties with an anti-equality agenda, such as the shadowy Wisconsin Alliance for Reform? Its website was registered by Lorri Pickens, the 2006 campaign manager for the anti-marriage equality group Vote Yes for Marriage in Wisconsin.
“These are exactly the type of misleading comments and unanswered questions that have so many people in Wisconsin worried about her temperament serving on our state’s highest court,” continued Rep. Mark Pocan. “Attending events to stump for votes does not demonstrate remorse nor absolve appointed Justice Bradley from her vitriolic statements of hatred. While I understand she is embarrassed that these public writings have surfaced, her comments to the press since Monday have been emblematic of a calculated politician doing damage control, not someone who has had a true change of heart.”
NOTE: This press release was submitted to Urban Milwaukee and was not written by an Urban Milwaukee writer. While it is believed to be reliable, Urban Milwaukee does not guarantee its accuracy or completeness.
Mentioned in This Press Release
Recent Press Releases by U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan
House Republicans continue to kick the can down the road and fail to govern
Sep 25th, 2024 by U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan&nsp;
I lot of talk about what she said 24 years ago, but nothing about her opponents comments from 5 years back.
Paul,
Why are you defending adultery? Are you a big fan of Bill Clinton?
Why are you opposed to “individual responsibility?”
“‘At one time I had a romantic relationship with (Bednall), which we both believed might result in marriage. We broke off that relationship in November 2002, although we have continued to date on a nonexclusive basis since that time,’ wrote Bradley, who was divorced in 2004.”
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/bradley-extra-marital-affair-role-in-child-placement-surface-b99684605z1-371700831.html
Dating on a nonexclusive basis is totally the type of heterosexual sex between a married couple that she believes in as a family values conservative.
Dating someone when you are separated from your spouse and going through a divorce is different from the Clinton sex acts and alleged rapes.
Paul, you wrote, “dating someone when you are separated from your spouse and going through a divorce is different from the Clinton sex acts and alleged rapes.”
When did Justice R. Bradley file for divorce? Hint: the answer is in the link I provided above.
Where in Wisconsin law is a married person allowed to have sex with someone other than their spouse? I don’t know of an exception for living in separate residences.
When was Bill Clinton indicted for rape?
What’s the difference between Bill Clinton’s adultery and Justice R. Bradley’s?
Justice R. Bradley belongs to the Thomas More Society. https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/about/
They really don’t like adultery, pre-marital sex, birth control….
Will they expel Justice R. Bradley? If they don’t, could they lose their 501(c)3?
Did Bill Clinton ever belong to the Thomas More Society?
Do you prefer, “Ten Suggestions” to “Ten Commandments?”
Paul it is amazing how flexible and understanding you are when the person under fire is a conservative. You are the definition of a blind partisan.
Vincent, if you can’t see the difference between what Bradley did and what Clinton did, you truly are the blind one.
What in the hell does Bill Clinton have to do with this? The right-wing obsession with Clinton poisons their entire worldview. Clinton’s affair does not make Bradley’s writings and beliefs any less abhorrent and despicable. It also doesn’t make her affair any less hypocritical. She is another “do as I say not as I do” family values hypocrite. But obsessing over Bill Clinton allows you to ignore her serious faults and shortcomings and hypocrisy.
Before you all go too far afield, just want to put in a quick side note here. Extra marital affairs are indeed morally wrong, and it doesn’t matter if a D or R comes after the name. However, the main issues surrounding Bill Clinton revolve around his lying under oath, accusations of sexual assault and other misconduct, and finally his and Hillary’s “Bimbo Eruption Squad” that pressured and threatened anyone who brought out allegations against him.
I know what the Clinton issues are AG. I just don’t see how they are relevant when discussing Rebecca Bradley. It’s like a conservative tic to mention Clinton when discussing basically anything under the sun, regardless of whether it’s truly relevant. It’s like a fall-back argument, an attempt to prove that what a Democrat did was always worse no matter the situation. It’s beyond tired at this point, the definition of a lazy argument.
Vincent, talk to Mr.Casper about why he brought Bill Clinton into this , my comment was about things that Kloppenburg said five years ago, that no one has answered yet.
Obviously it’s because the lamestream liberal media has conspired to do everything in its power to elect Kloppenburg. Surely Charlie must have told you that by now, and of course everything he says is true.
And once again, no answer
Are you talking about a clip of her saying she’s not tough on crime? Is that seriously what you are getting all worked up about? That is the best you’ve got?
Judges are supposed to be tough on crime, that’s what they are elected to do.
Yes I know that every right-winger has fantasies of a judge that’s part Bronson in Death Wish and part Eastwood in Dirty Harry. I’m sure you are no different.
I’d also say that Bradley saying race isn’t at all an issue in the criminal justice system is more problematic than what Kloppenburg said.
Race shouldn’t be an issue in criminal justice, you do the crime you should be locked up, no matter what race you are.
[quick diversion tactic] I wonder how Rebecca Bradley would rule on the Estabrook Dam issue?
No kidding Paul. But it is an issue. That is a far cry from stating it shouldn’t be. Even conservatives (including the Koch Brothers) have realized this in calling for sentencing disparity reform. It’s an issue. For her (or anyone) to claim otherwise is disturbingly ignorant and foolish.
Paul,
You, wrote, “Judges are supposed to be tough on crime, that’s what they are elected to do.”
Your love for Obama doesn’t have any limits?
How are judges supposed to do anything if Obama’s DOJ won’t indict even one Wall Street CEO?
Have you seen, “The Big Short?”
Paul, you wrote, “Vincent, talk to Mr.Casper about why he brought Bill Clinton into this , my comment was about things that Kloppenburg said five years ago, that no one has answered yet.”
1. Clinton never signed an affidavit that he was a serial adulterer. Is there any other difference between his adultery and Justice Bradley’s?
2. What did Judge Kloppenburg say five-years ago, that you don’t agree with?
Paul,
Can Justice Bradley ever provide creditable witness testimony? IANAL, but afaik, Chief Flynn cannot, because of his adultery. His adultery with one woman, opens whatever he says under oath to withering cross examination. AFAIK, this is why police officers lose their jobs, if caught in adultery.
Among the questions asked that you’ve ignored:
“Why are you defending adultery?
Why are you opposed to “individual responsibility?”
Do you want them renamed, “THE TEN SUGGESTIONS?”
AG, you wrote, “However, the main issues surrounding Bill Clinton revolve around his lying under oath, accusations of sexual assault and other misconduct, and finally his and Hillary’s “Bimbo Eruption Squad” that pressured and threatened anyone who brought out allegations against him.”
Among Clinton’s most significant failures were backing Newt Gingrich on the repeal of Glass-Steagall and signing NAFTA.
WRT his adultery, I thought it was relevant, because foreign governments and others could use it to blackmail him. I have the identical concerns about Justice R. Bradley. The greater the responsibilities, the more, “individual responsibility,” matters. Hanks and Spielberg’s, “Band of Brothers,” (written by UW grad, Stephen Ambrose, Ph.D.) confirmed that not everyone in Easy Company was a choir boy. But, they were an elite fighting unit with terrific discipline and very skilled at their craft of soldiering.
When you get to be a conservative, you’ll appreciate the significance of the Duke LaCrosse team and Paul’s hero, Mike Nifong. If over the decades, the GOP hadn’t gutted work place protections against sexual harassment, they could have gotten Bill.
Individual liberty and individual responsibility are always in tension.
Mr.Casper, when is Obamas DOJ going to indict Hillary?
Vincent, you wrote, “Dating on a nonexclusive basis is totally the type of heterosexual sex between a married couple that she believes in as a family values conservative.”
Bullseye.
Also completely contradicts the principles of the “Thomas More Society,” to which she belongs.
Exactly John. And the media is not at fault here. They are not unfairly attacking her for writing about this stuff.
Mr. Casper, only in the liberal mind that dating automatically means sex.
Are you serious Paul? You think she copped to an extramarital relationship with that man and they were only holding hands? Even WCD wouldn’t believe that. Takes delusional to a whole new level.
Paul, you wrote, “Mr. Casper, only in the liberal mind that dating automatically means sex.”
Is President Clinton a “conservative?” “I did not have sexual relations with that woman…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs
Why won’t Justice Rebecca Bradley follow President Clinton’s lead and clarify that she wasn’t having sex with the men she was, “dating” while married to Det. Bradley?
If she wasn’t having sex with these men, why were she and Det. Bradley living in separate residences?
If she wasn’t having sex with these men, why did she have to write the affidavit?
Will Bednall and the other men claim they were dating her, but not having sex?
Mr. Casper, I was talking about the statement you brought up about dating on a nonexclusive basis. Yes we all agree that after she was living separately from her husband she had a relationship, but you’re trying to make it sound like she was sleeping with everyone she dated.
Paul,
1. What was Justice Bradley’s purpose in writing her affidavit?
Per Bruce’s superior reporting, it’s unclear when she and her husband were living, “separately.” Under Wisconsin law, it’s irrelevant.
2. Are you excusing adultery, if it’s committed in a hotel/motel?
Thanks in advance.
“Top 20 Country Music Cheating Songs”
http://countrymusic.about.com/od/top10lists/ss/Best-Country-Music-Cheating-Songs.htm
Kloppenburg busy trolling for union campaign cash, I see. So much for even the slightest hint of impartiality. How transparent.
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/columnists/chris-rickert/chris-rickert-joanne-kloppenburg-fetes-union-head-forfeits-any-claim/article_5ac4741a-ce41-5418-90ca-64c9ee3844e9.html
WashCoWingnut,
Thanks for pointing out that President Reagan would have supported Judge Kloppenburg, because he believed so strongly in collective bargaining.
90-second video of President Reagan saying there is no, “freedom” without collective bargaining.
“These are the values inspiring those brave workers in Poland, the values that have inspired other dissidents under communist domination, who have been willing to go into the gulag and suffer the torture of imprisonment, because of their dissidence. They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost… They remind us that freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. You and I must protect and preserve freedom here, or it will not be passed on to our children and it will disappear everywhere in the world. Today, the workers in Poland are showing a new generation how high is the price of freedom, but also how much, it is worth that price. I want more than anything I’ve ever wanted, to have an administration that will through its actions, at home and in the international arena, let millions of people know, that Miss Liberty, still lifts her lamp beside the golden door.”
http://bloggingblue.com/2015/03/ronald-reagan-collective-bargaining-freedom-video/#comment-146867
Selective partisan outrage WashCoRepub. Nothing more.