"The Nine Most Insane Quotes From The NRA’s New Apocalyptic Op-Ed."

Wayne LaPierre opinion piece is translated into He's Crazy! format for safe consumption by the readers of Think Progress, so they can keeping thinking: Progress!

ADDED: I hope Think Progress isn't also flogging the lefty meme that we must not, in our struggle against gun violence, stigmatize the mentally ill. There's a meme-collision here: 1. Don't fear the mentally ill, who are harmless and deserving of empathy, and 2. That man seems like a mentally ill person, so we need to loathe and fear him.

"GOP Senator Pushes Gun-Running Conspiracy Theory During Benghazi Hearing."

That's the way they put it over at Think Progress. I've watched the video. Rand Paul asks a question. It seems histrionic to equate asking a question with pushing a conspiracy theory, and the truth is Hillary Clinton's answer has the ring of... lying.

The effort on the left to stereotype Rand Paul as a nutcase is so strenuous that it stimulates my root-for-the-underdog instinct. And makes me suspicious. I feel a Rand-Paul-must-be-destroyed conspiracy theory blossoming within.

"Though party officials typically dance around the unseemly issue of gerrymandering..."

"... this report is surprisingly candid and unabashed."

If Javon Belcher's girlfriend had owned a gun, might she have saved her own life?

The NRA thinks so, naturally, and naturally, Think Progress must say nooooo:

Whether or not [Kasandra] Perkins owned a gun, the woman was obviously unprepared for the sudden attack that ended her life last Saturday. Had she been armed, it’s possible the event could have become a shootout — further endangering the two onlookers to Perkins’ murder: The couple’s infant daughter, and Belcher’s mother.

Having a gun in the home increases the likelihood of both murders and suicides. According to the Brady Campaign, “A gun in the home is more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.”

Put simply, Perkins was a victim of domestic violence by a man who was able to purchase guns....

She was a victim, a victim, a victim. Get it? If she'd dared to redefine herself, it would only have been worse. Grandma and baby might have died in a gun-slinging shootout. Now, get in this box that we've prepared for you, young woman: the victim box. Too bad that in your case, the victim box is a coffin. If you could only enlarge your perspective and contemplate the larger policy concepts. Over the vast expanse of people whose lives will be cradled and blanketed by the loving kindness of gun control — and all manner of other control — there will be more comfort, more caring, more lives saved.... in the mind of Think Progress, which must, of course, always think Progress! and, being dedicated to progress must know which way is forward. No distractions off the path can be tolerated. Of course, women's empowerment lies ahead on the forward path. So it can't be possible to think that an armed Kasandra Perkins is progress. That must be a wrong turn. How to see women's empowerment and gun control both together on the forward path? She's a victim. Package her that way. Package her neatly and stow her away, here, in this grave.

"Bain and Financial Industry Gave Over $565,000 To Newark Mayor Cory Booker For 2002 Campaign."

That's a headline over at ThinkProgress, and it's getting a lot of attention, but let's look at the detail:

Contributions to his 2002 campaign from venture capitalists, investors, and big Wall Street bankers brought him more than $115,000 for his 2002 campaign. Among those contributing to his campaign were John Connaughton ($2,000), Steve Pagliuca ($2,200), Jonathan Lavine ($1,000) — all of Bain Capital....

So 3 guys who work at Bain gave Booker a total of $5,200.

[Booker] and his slate also jointly raised funds for the “Booker Team for Newark” joint committee. They received more than $450,000 for the 2002 campaign from the sector — including a pair of $15,400 contributions from Bain Capital Managing Directors Joshua Bekenstein and Mark Nunnelly. 

So there's another $30,800, for a total of $36,000. Just doing the math. Does Think Progress think that contributions from the financial industry taint the opinions of the politicians? Because... what's the number for Obama?

If we're going to pounce on everyone for the words they use, Ann Romney made herself exquisitely pounceable by saying "love."

"I love the fact that there are women out there who don’t have a choice and they must go to work and they still have to raise the kids."

1-word response not understood by left-wing blog.

And they even see the historical reference. They just can't put it together.

(Sorry for 2 Allen West posts in a row. It just happened in the normal course of looking for the morning's bloggables.)

Oh, look! A liberal is talking about whether something can be "squared with the Constitution."

Normally, law folk of the liberal persuasion mock those who think constitutional interpretation can be done like that. But here's Ian Millhiser at Think Progress writing under the headline "The Eleventh Circuit’s Affordable Care Act Decision Cannot Be Squared With The Constitution."

Millhiser quotes the majority's characterization of its task:

In answering whether the federal government may exercise this asserted power to issue a mandate for Americans to purchase health insurance from private companies, we next examine a number of issues: (1) the unprecedented nature of the individual mandate; (2) whether Congress’s exercise of its commerce authority affords sufficient and meaningful limiting principles; and (3) the far-reaching implications for our federalist structure.

Rather than acknowledging the sophistication of the judges' approach to legal analysis, Millhiser says:

This is one way to evaluate whether a law is constitutional, but a better way is to ask whether the law can be squared with text of the Constitution. 

He proceeds to quote the text of the Commerce Clause. (Of course, he doesn't stop there, but goes on to claim that there's virtually no limit to what Congress can do in the name of regulating commerce as long as "it does not violate another textual provision of the Constitution." Note the use of the word "textual," as if he would limit those other constraints to what is written in particular text. The obvious hypo: Could Congress ban abortion using its commerce power? Millhiser? Millhiser? Millhiser? Millhiser?)

Gingrich gives his opponents a quote to gasp about: "There is no Supreme Court in the American Constitution."

Just a few days ago, I was talking about a certain type of clever remark:

A witty, engaging speaker will say something surprising and counterintuitive, but then flesh it out or add one more point, and then it clicks. Of course, if you have opponents, you've got to anticipate what they'll do with the little slice of what you said that seems head-slappingly idiotic. So it may not be so smart to be smart like that. 

The context was David Plouffe saying "people won’t vote based on the unemployment rate." And now, here comes Newt Gingrich with an even juicier example of the seemingly stupid line that wakes up the audience and draws them in to hear the whole context but that also gives opponents an easy way to use the remark to make you look like an idiot.

Here's the quote, in it's full context (transcribed in a post by Ian Millhiser at Think Progress):

In the American system, if you read the Constitution correctly — this is why I wrote “A Nation Like No Other” — if you read the Federalist Papers correctly, the fact is the Congress can pass a law and can limit the Court’s jurisdiction. It’s written directly in the Constitution. The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton promises, I think it’s Number 78, that the judiciary branch is the weakest of the three branches. There is no Supreme Court in the American Constitution. There’s the court which is the Supreme of the judicial branch, but it’s not supreme over the legislative and executive branch. We now have this entire national elite that wants us to believe that any five lawyers are a Constitutional convention. That is profoundly un-American and profoundly wrong.

It's obvious to me — as a law professor who has studied and taught Article III of the Constitution for 25 years — that Gingrich is not denying that the Constitution provides for a Supreme Court. He's denying the supremacy of that Court over the other branches. He's stressing the checks on the judicial branch, which include Congress's power to make "Exceptions and... Regulations" to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, and the idea that the Supreme Court is not the sole voice in the interpretation of constitutional law. This is routine stuff in a Conlaw I class. It's what we conventionally talk about along with Marbury v. Madison. It's not the slightest bit edgy, believe me.

Watch the video at the Think Progress link. You can hear the stress on "Supreme" in "There is no Supreme Court in the American Constitution." He knows there's a Supreme Court. It's just not, in fact, supreme over everything. The Supreme Court can strike down statutes and order members of the Executive branch around to a certain extent, but it is also subject to jurisdiction cutbacks, new appointments, impeachment, and constitutional amendments. And the question of what the Constitution really means survives independently of the case law. We are free to argue that the Court got it wrong, to try to get cases overruled, and so forth. And there are many places where the Court hasn't spoken yet or may never speak, in which case there are important responsibilities elsewhere in government for other individuals to say what the Constitution means.

Isthmus columnist Emily Mills slimes me over the Wisconsin Supreme Court "chokegate" story...

... without taking the trouble to link to or quote anything I said. Or should I say without daring to link to or quote anything I said? She cites the "the fires of victim blaming amongst Prosser supporters" and then says:

One of the more vocal among them is blogger and UW Law School professor Ann Althouse, who has gone to great and terrible lengths to excuse the alleged behavior, attack the credibility of only the anonymous sources with whom she disagrees, suggest that no arrests (yet) mean no wrongdoing, impugn the honor of Justice Bradley, and cast doubt on the very justice system of this state.

What? Emily makes no effort to back up that characterization of me. My posts about the Wisconsin Supreme Court are all collected here. Any fair reader can see that I'm endeavoring to understand the stories that have appeared in the press, critiquing the press, and asking a lot of sensible questions. It's not even fair to call me a "Prosser supporter," let alone assert that I've "gone to great and terrible lengths" to "excuse... attack... [and] impugn" anybody.

Emily Mills' dishonest assertions about me seem to reflect her desperation, her need to believe what she wants to believe, her reflex to plug her ears and go la la la la la. I mean, look at what I actually said.

When Bill Lueders first dropped the allegation that Prosser choked Bradley, I merely noted it and said "Hmmm." My second post linked to the presentation of the story on the lefty blog Think Progress, which was about the ways to oust Prosser from the court. I corrected the blogger (Ian Millhiser) for calling Prosser an "accused criminal" instead of a "person accused of a crime" — which is a point anyone who cares about the rights of the accused ought to find important — and I observed that we lacked the full context. I speculated about who Lueders's sources were and who would have the motivation to go to the press. And, most devastating to Mills's embarrassing statement about me, I said:

But sure. If Justice Prosser committed a criminal attack on another Justice, he shouldn't be on the court, even if he only lashed out after weeks or years of merciless bullying. 

In fact, if you search through my posts, you'll see that I've consistently said Prosser should resign if he choked Justice Bradley. I said:

I agree with Millhiser that if it's true Prosser reached a breaking point and started strangling Bradley, he should go. I doubt that's true, however, because there was no arrest. That's why we're getting the story in this unsourced, piecemeal form.

I'm struggling to figure out what went on. Yes, I do use the evidence of no arrest to suggest that Prosser didn't suddenly snap and launch into a strangling, but that doesn't mean I'm saying "no arrests (yet) mean no wrongdoing." It means — as anyone who reads that post with a calm, clear mind can see — that I'm guessing the situation was complex — and later reports confirm my guess.

That post is updated with a reference to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel report citing allegations that Bradley initiated the physical aggression — charging at Prosser with fists raised. Emily Mills deserves to have her own language turned back on her: She has gone to great and terrible lengths to excuse Bradley's alleged behavior and to impugn the honor of Justice Prosser and blah blah blah. It's so easy to be a hot-headed partisan. And so risky! Because you make it so easy for someone to show what you are.

My next post on the subject goes into more detail examining the new material in the Journal Sentinel article. That post, before updates, concludes:

I want to know not only what really happened at the time of the physical contact (if any) between the 2 justices, but also who gave the original story to the press. If Prosser really tried to choke a nonviolent Bradley, he should resign. But if the original account is a trumped-up charge intended to destroy Prosser and obstruct the democratic processes of government in Wisconsin, then whoever sent the report out in that form should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack.

I boldfaced another sentence for you, Emily. My first update includes the material that, I think, has touched off panic in the local ideologues:

Everyone who thinks Prosser must to resign if he attacked Bradley ought to say that if Bradley attacked Prosser, she should resign.

I was calling for even-handedness and consistency. And that, I think, was what was truly "terrible" to people like Emily Mills. After the burst of enthusiasm that came with Bill Lueders's hit piece on Prosser, there came the horrible realization that the dreaded conservative governor Scott Walker might end up with the power to name a replacement for one of the liberal justices. I pointed that out — in the context of critiquing the decision to give Lueders the ability to break the story the way he did. I was trying to analyze the reasoning and motivation of the Lueders's unnamed sources.

This led to my next piece, analyzing the political reasoning behind Lueders's attack. There, I noted how the Lueders piece inspired lefty bloggers to go all out attacking Prosser in ways that will now — after the Journal Sentinel piece — be used to leverage arguments against Bradley. I repeated my statement "if it's true Prosser reached a breaking point and started strangling Bradley, he should go." And I called for principled consistency (addressing the Think Progress blogger Millhiser):

All right, Mr. Millhiser, I appeal to you. Let's be unanimous about this and show that our political system has not broken down. I agreed with you that if Prosser did what Lueders's story made it seem that he did, Prosser should resign. By your own standard, will you say that if Bradley initiated the physical aggression, running at Prosser with raised fists, that the integrity of our political system demands that there be unanimous calls for Bradley to be removed?

This is what's so scary and what — I think — is making these partisan local columnists tear into me. I'm not a pro-Prosser blogger. I'm a law professor blogger, probing with questions about neutral principles, the actual facts, and political interests. Lueders lured lefties into making statements that are now quite inconvenient, and they don't know how to get out of the corner they've written themselves into. Don't lash out at me. That's childish.

I'm asking hard questions that demand thoughtful, careful answers. It's been my job for a quarter of a century as a law professor to frame questions like that. And I'm an expert at seeing when people don't want to answer the questions. Answer the questions, I plead with my students before they take my exams. You can only get credit for answering the questions.

In my next post, I deal with a comment that Lueders left on that previous post, trying to defend himself. I continue to critique him and demand precision about the various assertions and what constitutes spin. The post after that has a similar theme, trying to figure out who Lueders's sources were. Here's another short post, wondering about who had the motivation to go to Lueders.

And that's just about all Emily Mills could have read before lashing out at me. Now, it's possible that she didn't read anything I wrote, because after the paragraph of hers I quoted above, she says:

I won't go into why Althouse's arguments are wrong -- someone has already done a far, far better job of it than I ever could -- but her writings on the matter provide a fairly good overview of what so many Prosser supporters are now arguing.

She links to some blogger's long screed about me. Emily, that's quite a confession! That's a far, far better job than you could ever do? How dare you write about me the way you did without going through my writings yourself? Did you check that blogger's work? Are you adopting the poor reading and reasoning as your own? You call me on fairness and you write about me the way you did? Aren't you even afraid for yourself, that you will look like a stupid hack? Aren't you even afraid for your liberal cause, that you have lost the very credibility you will need to defend Justice Bradley (and the Chief Justice) as the facts unfold? You need to show that you are interested in the truth, in principle, and that you will deal with the evidence and the serious questions. Why would you be so careless? It smells like desperation and panic.

I have waited nearly a day to respond to Emily Mills's embarrassing attack on me. Yesterday, Meade went over there to participate in the comments. He wrote:

Shame on you, Emily.  You assert and smear without so much as linking to her posts. You fail to cite the passages in which you claim she goes to "great and terrible lengths," "excuses," "attacks" credibility of sources (you happen to want to believe), "suggests," and "impugn[s]." You do this without linking or citing the specific words and sentences you want your readers to believe are objectionable. All because, what, because you say so?

Weak.

And then you dish off the dirty work of trying to substantiate your charges to a verbose blogger whose only argument in smearing Ann Althouse relies on the notion that Justice Bradley was in fact choked - a fact that is still in dispute.

I've seen you do better, Emily.

Although Mills responded within 2 hours to the previous commenter, she has not responded to Meade, and more than 13 hours have passed. I was hoping Meade's relatively gentle push-back would have been sufficient. I don't really like slamming a young writer who could do much better. Even when I have been attacked, I don't like it. Because I feel like a teacher. I'm not a political ideologue. I don't even care that much about politics. I care about truth and the ability of human beings to reason and to interact with each other.

And I generally choose not to draw attention to attacks on me. But the statement that Emily Mills made about me simply cannot be allowed to sit there festering on the website of a newspaper — Isthmus — that is widely read in my town.

It's too much like the attack from Bill Wineke that I felt I had to respond to yesterday. Both writers are attacking me as a law professor at the University of Wisconsin. I think they would like to destroy my reputation in this town, where they so casually assume the benefits of inclusion in what is a political majority here. I think they carelessly and lazily believe that local readers will eat up the sloppy attacks they're serving, because local readers agree with their political ends.

As they rush at me from across town shaking their balled-up fists in my face, I feel I must extend my fingers in self-defense, and type out an exposé of their shoddy work for a larger audience.

CORRECTION: The writer of the column "Emily's Post" isn't "Emily Post." It's Emily Mills. I've corrected all the mistaken references to "Emily Post."

How stupid/evil was Bill Lueders's attack on Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser?

Yesterday morning, I first read the story written by Bill Lueders — of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism — saying that "Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser allegedly grabbed fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley around the neck in an argument in her chambers earlier this month."

I'm linking to the publication of the article in the Wisconsin State Journal, because it seems to be the original version of what Lueders wrote. The version that now appears at the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism has been — according to a note in red at the top, time-stamped 10:15 p.m. — "updated to reflect reports of a statement from Prosser denying the allegations." But "updated" does not mean that there is an update at the bottom of the original text, adding new material or noting mistakes. The article has been rewritten, so the flaws that I am going to write about here can no longer be detected.

I first read the Lueders article after it was noted in an email that went out to the Wisconsin Law School faculty. I won't quote that email, but my immediate emailed response was: "I think it would make an interesting object of study for a journalism class."

By the way, the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, as you might imagine, purports to model high journalism values. It is "a first-of-its-kind alliance with public broadcasting journalists in six cities around the state, plus students and faculty of the journalism school at Wisconsin’s flagship university." Wisconsin's "flagship university" is, of course, the University of Wisconsin—Madison, my place of employment. I'm not inclined to hurt my own university, but I will make my observations as I see them. This is an object of study for the little journalism class of the internet that is this blog post.

Over the course of the day, yesterday, on lefty blogs and Twitter, there were vicious attacks on Prosser, with many opponents of Prosser (and Scott Walker) asserting that Prosser must leave the court. He should resign (or be impeached or recalled). I linked to a blog post over at Think Progress, where Ian Millhiser concluded:

Should the allegations against Prosser prove true, it is tough to imagine a truer sign that our political system has broken down than if the calls to remove him from office are not unanimous.

I agreed with Millhiser that "if it's true Prosser reached a breaking point and started strangling Bradley, he should go." But I wanted to know the whole story. It seemed to me that Lueders had given us "just the snapshot of one hard-to-comprehend instant within the longer event."  I was skeptical about the version of the story Lueders had put out, because there had been no arrest and because I found it hard to picture an elderly, dignified man suddenly grabbing a (somewhat less elderly) woman by the neck.

I first noted the Lueders article in this post, where I excerpted 2 paragraphs and wondered about Lueders's reference to his sources: "The sources spoke on the condition that they not be named, citing a need to preserve professional relationships." Lueders said he had "three knowledgeable sources," and that he had contacted Prosser for a response and that Prosser had said "I have nothing to say about it."

He repeated this statement after the particulars of the story - including the allegation that there was physical contact between him and Bradley - were described. He did not confirm or deny any part of the reconstructed account.

Later in the day, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel came out with an article that revealed more complexity to the allegations. I wrote about that post last night, noting the account of "a source" who had spoken to "several" of the justices who witnessed the incident (there were "[a]t least five"), and said that Prosser "put his hands around" Bradley's neck, without "exert[ing] any pressure," which Bradley "described as a chokehold."

The Journal Sentinel then cites "another source" that said "that Bradley attacked Prosser." Here we get the first allegation that Bradely "charged him with fists raised" and that Prosser "put his hands in a defensive posture," blocking her, resulting in hand-neck contact.

The Journal Sentinel begins a new paragraph with "Another source..." If that is not miswritten, we now have a third source — "another" and then "another" — that's the second and third source. This third source, like the second source, has Bradley coming at Prosser "with fists up" and Prosser reacting defensively. This source — which I'm seeing as the Sentinel's third source — confirms the first source in saying that Bradley called it choking at the time. This source also has a Justice (not Prosser) reacting by saying "You were not choked."

Now, we've just reviewed the stories of various unnamed sources, as reported by Lueders and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. What I want to know is: What is the total number of sources? Is it 6? 5? 4? Or is it 3? It could be only 3! That is, 2 of Lueders's sources could have been the sources who gave the fuller context, with Bradley as the aggressor. What did Lueders know and when did he know it? Did Lueders have the fists-of-fury version of the story and deliberately leave it out? Did he leave it out when he contacted Prosser for a response and recited "the particulars of the story," the "reconstructed account" that he referred to in his article.

I told you this was going to be a little journalism class. Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, will you investigate your own journalism?

Maybe Prosser had "nothing to say about it" because the "reconstructed account" Lueders recited contained the allegation that Bradley charged at him with raised fists. Prosser did comment later in the day — a day full of destructive attacks on him, which speculated about the meaning of his absence of comment. Those attacks assumed that Prosser knew the story in the form that would appear in Lueders's article. But did he? I want to know!

In my last post of the day, commenting on the Journal Sentinel article, I said: 

I want to know not only what really happened at the time of the physical contact (if any) between the 2 justices, but also who gave the original story to the press. If Prosser really tried to choke a nonviolent Bradley, he should resign. But if the original account is a trumped-up charge intended to destroy Prosser and obstruct the democratic processes of government in Wisconsin, then whoever sent the report out in that form should be held responsible for what should be recognized as a truly evil attack.

When I wrote that, it did not cross my mind that the "truly evil" person might be Lueders himself. That's something occurred to me when I woke up this morning and began thinking about the possibility that the total number of unnamed sources was only 3.

Lueders needs to tell us whether or not he knew the Bradley-as-the-aggressor story when he presented his original work of investigative journalism under the name of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism. If he knew it, why didn't he present the whole context at first? And what was in the "reconstructed account" that got Prosser to decline comment? If Lueders didn't know the alternate version of the story, in which Bradley was the aggressor, why on earth didn't he know? The story he presented is so weird that any thinking person would demand to know more of the context. Did Lueders keep himself willfully ignorant of the more complicated version of the story, and if he did, why? What kind of journalism is that? Truly evil?

Now, let's go back to what Ian Millhiser said: "Should the allegations against Prosser prove true, it is tough to imagine a truer sign that our political system has broken down than if the calls to remove him from office are not unanimous." All right, Mr. Millhiser, I appeal to you. Let's be unanimous about this and show that our political system has not broken down. I agreed with you that if Prosser did what Lueders's story made it seem that he did, Prosser should resign. By your own standard, will you say that if Bradley initiated the physical aggression, running at Prosser with raised fists, that the integrity of our political system demands that there be unanimous calls for Bradley to be removed?

Finally, it must be said: If Lueders had the larger context of the story — including the allegation that Bradley was the aggressor — and he suppressed it in his original account, what he did was not only evil, shameful journalism, it was freaking stupid. All sorts of bloggers and tweeters like Millhiser committed themselves to the firm, righteous position that if Prosser did what is alleged, he must leave the court. Lueders's article lured them into stating a firm and supposedly neutral principle about physical aggression. With that principle in place, they are bound to call for Bradley's ouster, if Bradley really did take the offensive and transform the verbal argument into a physical fight.

And what are the methods of ouster? Refer to the list in Millhiser's post: 1. Resignation, 2. Impeachment, 3. Removal by Address, and 4. Recall. A newly reelected official, under Wisconsin law, cannot be recalled for a year. Unlike Prosser, who was just reelected, Bradley is subject to recall. Impeachment and removal by address are procedures that take place in the state legislature. But the state legislature is controlled by the Republicans, who aren't likely to go after Prosser. Only Bradley is vulnerable to impeachment and removal by address if the legislature is influenced by political ideology. And if either justice is removed, the replacement will be named by Governor Scott Walker, so only Bradley's ouster will change the conservative-liberal balance on the court.

See what I mean about stupid? If Lueders didn't know the allegation about Bradley after doing his investigative journalism, that was stupid. How could he investigate and not find that out?  If Lueders did know the allegation and suppressed it he was not merely stupid but evil. And make no mistake about how stupid: His article initiated a day of furious writing by liberals that threatens to hurt Bradley and the liberal interests in Wisconsin.

ADDED: I corrected a mistake in the paragraph that begins "Maybe Prosser had 'nothing to say about it'..." It was originally missing the word "had" and said "the 'reconstructed account' Lueders recited contained the allegation" instead of "the 'reconstructed account' Lueders recited did not contain the allegation..." UPDATE: It was right the first time, as someone in the comments pointed out! I uncorrected it. And now it's un-uncorrected. Sorry for the confusion!

ALSO: Instapundit says: "It’s as if the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism is just a partisan hit shop or something."

IN THE COMMENTS: Bill Lueders himself responds:

As our original story reported, the Center and WPR made individual inquiries to every member of the Supreme Court...

We had as reported "at least three" sources for the statement that Prosser allegedly put his hands around Bradley's neck. We also spoke to others who declined to give any information about what occurred. No one said or suggested in any way, shape or form that Bradley was the aggressor, a charge that Prosser himself has not made. The Journal Sentinel says it found sources who contend this, so we updated the story to reflect that, but I do not know who these sources are and have no way to gauge their credibility, as I do for the sources we had.

As you know, Justice Bradley has now publicly accused Prosser of putting his hands around her neck and ridiculed the contention that this was somehow her fault....

We absolutely did not have information about an alternative version that we purposely withheld.

So, it's a mystery how the Journal Sentinel came up with the 2 sources who portrayed Bradley as the physical aggressor. Lueders does not say whether he went back to his original sources to inquire about about the truth of that story — unless Bradley was one of the original sources. Whether Bradley was one of the original sources or not, he's giving us only an ambiguous statement with respect to the question whether she did anything like charging at Prosser with raised fists. We get the conclusory assertion — not in the form of a direct quote — that she "ridiculed the contention that this was somehow her fault." Her version could be that Prosser verbal statements made her extremely angry and refused to leave her office, so it was his fault that she ran at him with raised fists. What exactly happened? Why didn't she call the police?

Lueders doesn't say how much (if at all) he probed into the context of what happened. I'm puzzled by his lack of curiosity about a story that is so inherently hard to believe. Why did the Journal Sentinel so quickly turn up a more complex version of the story? Was Lueders willfully incurious? Why did he pass on such an odd story without asking the questions that an ordinary person would instinctively ask? Or did he ask those questions? Did his sources insist that Bradley was sitting or standing peacefully and Prosser suddenly lunged at her? Or did he snap up the useful version of the story and run with it? It just doesn't add up to me.

Think Progress explains "Four Ways Justice David Prosser Can Be Removed From Office."

We've already been talking about this rather odd report that Prosser "grabbed" Justice Ann Walsh Bradley "by the neck." No one was arrested, and the story only got into the press via "at least three knowledgeable sources" that cannot be named because "professional relationships" need to be "preserv[ed]."

Ian Millhiser speculates about what might be done if it is, in fact, true that Prosser did this.

Like all accused criminals, Prosser enjoys a presumption of innocence and he should not be condemned until the evidence clearly shows that he is guilty.

It's very poor writing to say "accused criminals" when you mean "persons accused of a crime" and you're trying to stress the presumption of innocence. But no one was arrested, there's no pending prosecution, so why is he even saying that Prosser is accused of a crime? We don't even have a whole report of what supposedly happened. If there were a prosecution here, the whole story would come out — all sorts of details about the justices, and not just the snapshot of one hard-to-comprehend instant within the longer event. Who would end up looking the worst here? A decision was made, privately, to suppress the incident, and then 3 individuals — who? — decided to leak it out in a way that is, presumably, affected by subjectivity and political interest.

But sure. If Justice Prosser committed a criminal attack on another Justice, he shouldn't be on the court, even if he only lashed out after weeks or years of merciless bullying. And let's have the whole story. Maybe there are some other Justices who don't belong on the court. Clear out everyone who doesn't belong on the court. How will they be replaced? By appointment of the Governor — the formidable Scott Walker.

Is that what you want, Think Progress?

Anyway, Think Progress outlines the methods of ousting Prosser:

Resignation...

This is the easiest way for Prosser to end the controversy and give Scott Walker the chance to appoint a virtuous, strong, smart conservative.  Walker should pick someone with nerves of steel so to stand up to any verbal aggression without resorting to felonious neck-wringing.

Impeachment...

Removal by Address: A supermajority of both houses of the state legislature can also remove Prosser through a process known as “removal by address.”...

News flash: Wisconsin has a Republican legislature. 

Recall: As a last resort, Prosser may be removed by a recall election using the same process that was recently invoked to attempt to recall several state senators.

But you can't start this process until 1 year after his reelection, so settle down, people. But what is the point of all this? If Prosser goes, Walker appoints someone younger, more vigorously conservative, and without the baggage of old intra-court grudges. I think the point is to discredit Prosser and the conservative majority on the court, to undermine the public's faith in the work of the court. But I agree with Millhiser that if it's true Prosser reached a breaking point and started strangling Bradley, he should go. I doubt that's true, however, because there was no arrest. That's why we're getting the story in this unsourced, piecemeal form.

UPDATE: A more nuanced report from the Journal Sentinel has (unnamed) sources disagreeing about what happened. Someone is saying Bradley charged at Prosser with fist raised, and she ran into his defensively raised hands, then cried choked. 

"Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito Dismisses His Profligate Right-Wing Fundraising As ‘Not Important.'"

Think Progress blogger Lee Fang confronts Justice Alito. Later, recording video, he yells at him and is threatened with arrest.

ThinkProgress festoons itself with updates of shame.

I'm willing to believe there's something screwy about MSNBC's suspension of Keith Olbermann, but Think Progress's eagerness to blame a conservative resulted in an elaborate post that is now so studded with backtracking updates as to be unreadable.

"Rand Paul Feels Sorry For Barton, While Limbaugh Doubles Down On Barton’s 'Shakedown' Claims."

Oh? Well, then, I guess Rush totally out-macho'd Rand. Rand needs to man up!

"You’d be surprised how many people liked that. That’s sort of the best thing I ever did."

Lefty gasping at Dick Cheney's deadpan humor.

Think Progress? Think humorlessness.

Want to laugh twice? A comic riff and a laughable failure to perceive that it's a comic riff.

Somehow Think Progress has no trouble seeing that Obama had to be joking when he said "There’s no Armageddon out there" but when Rush Limbaugh pointed to the Icelandic volcano that could only be crackpot religion.

Maybe it's not just humor-deafness. Maybe what Think Progress is letting slip is its own secure confidence that Obama is not a religious man (along with an assumption that Rush Limbaugh is). This gives me an idea for a little poll. This is a completely serious poll, not a joke or an attempt to record which of the 2 men you prefer.

Who's religious, Obama or Limbaugh?
	Both men are genuinely religious.
	Limbaugh is genuinely religious and Obama is not.
	Obama is genuinely religious and Limbaugh is not.
	Neither man is religious.
pollcode.com free polls

The reason this isn't what it looks like it is is that if it really were what it looks like, he wouldn't do it.

Come on! It would be so blatant, he wouldn't do it, if he were doing it. Therefore he can't be doing it.

That's how I hear this Think Progress argument:

Today on Fox News, Neil Cavuto irresponsibly pushed the baseless rumor that President Obama bought Rep. Jim Matheson’s (D-UT) vote on health care reform by offering his brother a federal judgeship. First, Cavuto invited the originator of the conspiracy theory, Weekly Standard’s John McCormack. For his part, McCormack undermined his own argument. “Was there an explicit quid pro quo? Probably not,” he said. Next, Cavuto invited Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), who reiterated her call for an investigation into the matter. But Bachmann, too, acknowledged the lack of any basis for the claim. “We don’t know — that’s the question,” she said. 

It's not a "conspiracy theory": It's the observation of facts that create an appearance of impropriety. TP is saying we should forget about it because Obama didn't openly state that he was making the nomination in exchange for the vote. Of course, there's no explicit quid pro quo! How do you think successful corrupt individuals perform corrupt acts? If it were a quid pro quo, there'd be no explicit quid pro quo — certainly not one that we'd hear.  Lack of any basis? The basis is the nomination of the brother of a man whose vote is needed. Think Progress conveniently pretends that "any basis" is the same thing as "conclusive proof." You know damned well that if Bush were still President, needed a vote from a congressman, and nominated that congressman's brother, Think Progress and its ilk would be screaming for an investigation.

Steven Benen of Political Animal calls it the "Manufactured Controversy of the Day." And I call that the Manufactured Desperate Spin of the Day.

"Republicans gleefully circulated a Weekly Standard piece yesterday that asked if Obama was trying to buy Matheson's vote by nominating his brother, Scott, to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Both the White House and Matheson's office swiftly answered the question with a resounding 'no.' "

They didn't confess to an explicit quid pro quo? Well, then, move along! Please tell us, Mr. Benen, what you would have said if George Bush had done exactly this much.

Rep. Matheson's spokesperson called the question "patently ridiculous." A White House official called the question "absurd."

And what would they have said if there was something more to the nomination than just the brother's outstanding credentials? The same thing.

Is there any evidence — anything at all — to suggest the Matheson nomination is related in any way to getting his brother's vote on health care? No. There's literally nothing.

Of course, there is evidence. The evidence is the need to persuade the congressman and the timing of the the nomination of the brother. It's not conclusive proof, but it is evidence. We need more evidence to answer our questions, but there is surely a basis of our questions.

But it's nevertheless the talk of the conservative world today....

And you know damned well it would be the talk of the liberal world if Bush were still President and... man, that point is tedious. But it's so apt! Politicos are so boring. Blech.

"I think John McCain would have been worse. How about this? I think John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama. How’s that?"

Watch CBS Videos Online

Hmmm. Maybe I should start watching Glenn Beck!

I got that clip from Think Progress, which notes: "Beck is causing consternation for many right wingers these days."

Ooh! Consternation! Bring it on.

And in case you forgot: "How McCain lost me."