...what? I am perfectly entitled to use the rules of thumb popularized by left-wing hack groups like ThinkProgress or Talking Points Memo: since they felt justified in using uncorroborated anonymous reports to vicariously convict Prosser of assault, they have absolutely no justification for other people using the precise same criteria to vicariously convict Bradley. Besides, my version makes much more coherent sense.
OK, let me explain this one for folks coming in late. About two weeks ago there was supposedly a violen... oh, let's not use euphemisms: supposedly, two Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices (Prosser and Bradley) got into a fight. It was first reported that Prosser put Bradley in a choke-hold - whereupon most of the Online Left dropped their pants and started typing blissfully angry screeds about how the crime of one Supreme Court Justice attacking another Supreme Court Justice could only be made right with an immediate resignation - only to have it later come out that other reports had it that Bradley had actually charged Prosser with fists raised, and that Prosser was merely defending himself against a larger and younger opponent. Complicating all of this is the minor detail that no charges were apparently filed*, and Bradley has only now come out with a rather belated claim accusing Prosser of the choking, while not explaining why she is not pursuing a criminal case. Which is very possibly due to the fact that there's at least one witness apparently who told Bradley at the time that no, she had not been choked.
Note, by the way, that all of the people involved - participants and witnesses - are Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices. You're going to see some fascinating dissents from these people for the next few years.
But back to the matter at hand. I'm buying the charged-Prosser-with-hands-raised version for two** reasons: one, it's messier and more incoherent, which makes it more likely; and two, there's the awkward-for-the-Left question about why there was neither an immediate hue-and-cry, nor charges filed. In this scenario, both sides have valid reasons for keeping their mouths shut: the Left doesn't want to lose one of its judges (which, by the way, groups ThinkProgress and Talking Points Memo will absolutely have to call for, if it turns out that Bradley attacked first), and the Right doesn't want to have to explain why one of their judges didn't just sit there and let himself get hit by a woman (yes, in fact, that would be an issue).
Ann Althouse is feeling sort of bad for all the Lefties that may be getting burned by this; I am not. I remember falling for a story like this during the 2008 election; that's when I adopted a 24-48-72 hour rule on stories that sounded too good/bad to be true. The way things are looking here, a lot of people on the Left may end up wishing that they did the same.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
*Leading to the immortal blog comment "The first rule of Supreme Court Fight Club is, you do not talk about Supreme Court Fight Club."
**OK, three. I'm a partisan hack.