Backers of a move to recall State Senator Dan Kapanke (R) of Wisconsin have gathered more than enough signatures to force an election. The Democrats are also targeting seven other Wisconsin Republicans. Wisconsin Republican had also mounted a very weak recall effort against the 14 Democratic State Senators who originally prevented a quorum for a vote on Governor Walker's union-busting law. Apparently, their movement was defeated by all those "union thugs" who stood in front of their signs so that nobody could read them. Tomorrow's election for State Supreme Court Justice could give a strong indication as to how Wisconsin Democrats' efforts to restore democracy to Wisconsin will go. If incumbant radical right-wing judge David Prosser loses his bid for re-election, it should signal that the wind is blowing in the right direction in Wisconsin.
decide-fate-of-wisconsin-collective-bargaining-law/

I feel like republicans hype up there wins so much because they are winning so rarely lately. I had to search pretty hard b4 finding this story

I feel like republicans hype up there wins so much because they are winning so rarely lately. I had to search pretty hard b4 finding this story

Refusal to prosecute sexual abuse case
In 1979, while District Attorney of Outagamie County, David Prosser refused to prosecute a priest, Father John Patrick Feeney, who had sexually abused two children (aged 12 and 14), telling the children's mother that "it would be too hard on [her] boys." The priest went on to abuse other children before being sent to jail in 2004. In 2008, Prosser stated that he had done nothing wrong regarding the case, and did not file charges because he did not think he could win the case, describing the testimonies as "weak".[20][21][22] He claimed that he received assurances from a bishop that the Church would "take care of it".
In 1978 the bishop wrote in a letter that, "As is usual in such cases and out of respect for the position of the church, and in order to prevent unnecessary scandal, [Prosser] came to see [the bishop]...[the bishop] had to agree with the district attorney [Prosser] that the church would prefer to keep this out of court and out of the public eye." In response, Prosser said that "the time line of the letter's facts is questionable and the bishop's assertions are exaggerated." [23] As a Justice on the Supreme Court, Prosser recused himself from several cases relating to the Catholic Church and allegations of sexual abuse against minors.[24][25]
Interviewed in 2008, one of the victims commented that at the time, "[he] was ready to take the stand. [Prosser] said that "it would be too embarrassing for a kid [his] age...What jury would believe a kid testifying against a priest?" Then [Prosser] said, "what really makes it bad is that Feeney's brother, Joe, sang on the Lawrence Welk show and everybody watched that back then."[26]
In 2011, as Prosser ran for re-election, the controversy was the subject of an advertisement by the Greater Wisconsin Committee, a pro-union/Democrat[27] independent political organization, which criticized Prosser's reluctance to pursue charges. In response, the same victim released a signed statement[28] indicating that he now believed Mr. Prosser's description of the case and was upset by the ad, saying that if he was a resident of Wisconsin, he would vote for Mr. Prosser. Regarding his statement three years ago, he said that, "[he didn't] want to get back to different things that were reported in the past."[29] He later appeared in a commercial saying "with the help of David Prosser and law enforcement, we brought our abuser to justice" and criticized Kloppenburg for not stopping the advertisement.[30][31] Prosser had previously made the request of Kloppenburg at a campaign forum, to which she responded by stating that the ad wasn't hers, and "Like it or not, third parties have a First Amendment right to run ads of their own choosing."[32]
The Greater Wisconsin Committee released a statement saying, "The failure of Prosser to take seriously the accusations of child sexual abuse go far beyond the politics of the day. It is critical that we demand our elected prosecutors and judges protect our children from sexual predators.".[21] In contrast, Waukesha County District Attorney Brad Schimel, a Republican,[33] stated that "The ad is distasteful, factually flawed and clearly an act of a group desperate to change the composition of the court."[34] In 2008, Prosser had ruled that Justice Michael Gableman should not be sanctioned for running a deceitful advertisement attacking then-Justice Louis Butler.[35]
The advertisement was rated by the independent Pulitzer Prize-winning factchecker PolitiFact.com as "Barely True", saying that the ads assertions were factually correct, but it omitted evidence and created possibly false impressions by suggesting "more information was available to Prosser at the time than really was". PolitiFact also mentioned that at least one important piece of evidence was not known to Prosser at the time.[36]
[edit]Controversies while member of the Wisconsin Supreme Court
On February 10, 2010, while the Wisconsin Supreme Court was debating a case behind closed doors, Prosser called Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson "a total *****" and threatened to "destroy her".[37] He went on to specify the "destruction" as happening through a war against her, "and it won't be a ground war." In 2011, Prosser stated "I probably overreacted, but I think it was entirely warranted." He characterized his outburst as justified because Abrahamson (as well as other justices) had "deliberately [goaded him] into perhaps incautious statements. This is bullying and abuse." He also accused the recent revelations as politically influenced in an attempt to hurt his bid for re-election.
According to Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, Prosser has had these outbursts over the years, but there hasn't been one of significant magnitude since this one. She also commented, "You can say a lot of good things about David Prosser - and I do, and he is a good man - but you cannot accurately say he has a steady, even temperament." [37] Prosser later said that the fights were caused by other members of the court "ganging up" on him and attempting to create a "foul atmosphere" for his re-election campaign.[38](subscription required) The conflict on the court has been criticized in general for lowering court productivity.[39]
[edit]Other
In 1998, Rep. Scott Jensen was charged with three felony counts of misconduct in office because his legislative staffers also performed campaign activity on his behalf. During the trial, David Prosser testified on Jensen's behalf, stating that for seven years of his time in the Wisconsin Assembly, he used his taxpayer-funded staff for campaigning, the same crime Jensen was eventually convicted of.[40][41] Prosser was not charged, and defended the actions as by saying, "it was a different era and public expectations were quite different", but was criticized for what others described as his illegal activity. The Appleton Post Crescent, Prosser's hometown paper, described it as, "a member of the highest court in Wisconsin...admitting he condoned illegal activity as an elected official", and urged their readers to vote against him as a result.[42]
In December 2010, Prosser's campaign said that "his personal ideology more closely mirrors" the Walker administration. A statement from his campaign director said that, the Prosser campaign efforts included "protecting the conservative judicial majority and acting as a common sense compliment (sic) to both the new administration and Legislature." [43] Prosser later disavowed the statement and claimed he didn't see the release.[44] Prosser's campaign manager has also said that, "This election is about a 4-3 commonsense conservative majority vs. a 3-4 liberal majority, and nothing more",[45][46][47] an incident cited by The Capital Times as it urged its readers to vote against him.[48]
Prosser was a speaker at a Tea Party event in 2010.[49][50]

He is also calling for Kloppenburg to renounce the commercial and have it pulled, but she refuses to.

Freedom of speech is one thing, telling lies is another.

OK. In 2003, the Florida court of Appeals affirmed that Fox News does, indeed have the first amendment right to broadcast fraudulent news stories (lies) I believe it was Akers v Fox news. There was a similar judgement in a case against Nike over truth in advertising, I believe.

oh, so only fox news can tell lies? lol your getting funnier by the day...

You have misinterpreted the post. An earlier poster questioned whether it was allowed to tell lies in an ad. The Fox news case and the Nike case were the only court cases that I am aware of. Maybe there is a similar case involving the Huffington Post. I'm not aware of it.

the you worded it was misleading

How so?

by implying that only fox could lie...