If He’d Shot Her, Would Prosser Claim “Castle Doctrine” as a Defense?

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser, currently the target of an ethics probe for choking fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, claimed today that it is constitutionally illegal to investigate his actions under the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Nevermind any Wisconsin law, I suppose.  Here’s what he said, as reported by the Wisconsin State Journal:

“For an outside agency dominated by gubernatorial appointees to seek to breach the confidentiality of closed Supreme Court conferences in order to monitor, oversee and prosecute the speech and lawful conduct of justices would violate the separation of powers and disrupt the work of the Supreme Court,” the response states.

Allowing complaints like the one filed against him also would deny justices the ability to defend themselves without violating the court’s ethical rules requiring them to maintain confidentiality, Prosser said in his response.

I’m just waiting for Prosser to claim the Castle Doctrine protects his actions of trying to choke his fellow Justice.  This man needs to go. 





Related Articles

4 thoughts on “If He’d Shot Her, Would Prosser Claim “Castle Doctrine” as a Defense?

  1. What about Justice Bradley’s rights? The right to confront her assailant? Her rights under the First Amendment?

  2. Prosser only cares about his own rights, not anyone else’s. I swear his next defense will be to claim the Supreme Court building his castle and then to claim the choking was within his rights.

  3. He’s so stupid he gave away the argument in less than two paragraphs.

    “…oversee and prosecute the speech and lawful conduct of justices…”

    Since when is physically attacking someone considered ‘lawful conduct’?

  4. Of course it isn’t, Randy, but I’m sure he thinks it is “speech.” I suspect if he’d taken a whip to her he’d have considered that “speech” as well.

Comments are closed.