"[H]omosexuals and drug addicts who do essentially kill themselves and others through their own behavior deservedly receive none of my sympathy," she said about countless people dying excruciating deaths from AIDS.

Bradley also said that “homosexual sex kills” and called gay people "degenerates who basically commit suicide through their behavior.”

Repeatedly, Bradley stated publicly that if you were gay or an addict and suffering from AIDS, you deserved it. (Don't worry though—she specified that she feels bad for the straight and sober people that contract it.)

Bradley also called President Bill Clinton "a tree-hugging, baby-killing, pot-smoking, flag-burning, queer-loving, bull-spouting '60s radical socialist adulterer.“ She criticized those who voted for him, stating that, “Either you condone drug use, homosexuality, AIDS-producing sex, adultery, and murder and are therefore a bad person, or you didn't know that he supports abortion on demand and socialism, which means you are dumb."

In Bradley’s articles, she expressed her hatred and disdain for feminists, writing, "I intend to expose the feminist movement as largely composed of angry, militant, man-hating lesbians who abhor the traditional family.”

Now, I know what you're thinking. "But wait! She didn't compare abortion to the Holocaust! She hasn't even completed the entire Terrible Person Rhetoric Obstacle Course yet!" But don't worry, she compared actually compared abortion to the Holocaust and Slavery, so she gets bonus points.

Of course, Bradley says now that those articles don't reflect her worldview, stating "I was writing as a very young student, upset about the outcome of that presidential election and I am frankly embarrassed at the content and tone of what I wrote those many years ago," calling the release of the articles "a blatant mudslinging campaign to distract the people from the issues at hand."

It's okay to change your mind, of course, but to write any of that to begin with is pretty horrific. She chose to publish some outrageously vitriolic, evil, malicious, cruel, extremely awful stuff. (See, Bradley? You're not the only one who can overuse adjectives!)

In her apology she said that she would "work for the people of this state to ensure that justice is served and upheld on the state’s highest court." That's not too relieving considering that she thought LGBTQ people getting AIDS was justice.

(Side note: currently soliciting bets/guesses on how many times Bradley has called Obama a socialist Kenyan this week alone. Muttering it angrily to herself counts.)

Bradley lacks almost any judicial philosophy

From Wisconsin State Journal:

Asked what cases provide evidence for their judicial philosophies, Kloppenburg’s campaign pointed to a 2012 decision affirming a circuit court decision denying arbitration against a woman who was suing a nursing home where her husband died, and a 2015 decision in which she was part of a panel of judges that dismissed citations against protesters at the Capitol during Act 10. Bradley’s campaign didn’t respond to a request for examples of decisions that provide evidence for her judicial philosophy. But Bradley said in a March forum that a 1989 opinion written by Scalia best exemplifies her approach. In that case, Scalia upheld a person’s right to burn the American flag despite Scalia’s personal opposition to doing so.

As thrilling as it is that our judges still believe in free speech, any illuminating evidence from the last thirty years, or any decision from her state, or any decision that she actually, you know, decided would be nice. That Scalia case is basically her skirting the question by saying that judges should apply the law, which every judicial candidate in the history of our country has said. Not exactly groundbreaking.

In fact, the Wisconsin Professional Police Association endorsed Kloppenburg instead of Bradley for this reason.

Jim Palmer, executive director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association (WPPA), said the group’s decision to endorse Kloppenburg was, in part, because of Bradley’s unwillingness to discuss cases that could have provided evidence of her judicial philosophy or knowledge of criminal law. He said the board has historically placed greater weight on the candidates’ experience and knowledge of criminal law. “When Bradley appeared before our board, she proved herself totally incapable of offering anything to demonstrate her knowledge, experience, or her judicial philosophy,” he said. “Frankly, it was a little embarrassing.”

Bradley thinks people should be easier on the cops.

Maybe the WPPA cares about knowledge, but that’s not exactly the FOP's priority. From the Wisconsin State Journal:

Andy Opperman, vice-president of the Wisconsin Fraternal Order of Police board, said his group endorsed Bradley because her “views aligned quite significantly with the Fraternal Order of Police.” […] Opperman said Bradley empathized with officers who feel law enforcement officers are “under attack” after high-profile shootings of unarmed black men by police officers, including two in Wisconsin since 2014. “She’s very in support of law enforcement as far as us being under attack as of the last year,” he said. “She basically said she felt we were under attack and she was in support of law enforcement, and just saying that alone is huge.”

So Bradley believes that unarmed black men shot by cops means the police are under attack. Got it.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, one of Bradley's big supporters was Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. In November, Clarke, who is black, was asked about the disproportionate incarceration of black people.

"Let me tell you why. Blacks sell drugs and involve themselves in criminal behavior, instead of a more socially acceptable lifestyle — because they're uneducated, they're lazy and they're morally bankrupt. That's why," he said.

Three days after those statements, Bradley's campaign sent a letter from to donors from Clarke, expressing his support for her candidacy.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is a corrupt disaster

Okay, this point isn’t just about Bradley. But it’s important.

Wisconsin has traditionally had very expensive Supreme Court races, with special interests donating millions in races that are supposed to be non-partisan for a role that is supposed to be unbiased. In fact, Wisconsin is arguably the worst state. Brennan Center calls Wisconsin "the poster child for allowing secret money in elections” and says that “nowhere is the effect of weakened campaign finance rules more apparent Tuesday than in the race for a state supreme court seat."

Outside money is a problem for both parties, but Republicans have traditionally far outspent their opponents. This race is no exception -- special interests donated to Bradley four times as much as they donated to Kloppenburg. Total spending for this election exceed three million dollars.

This is a staggering amount of money, and the involvement of special interests bodes poorly for the institution as a whole.

“Public confidence in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court has plummeted in recent years, and high-cost and politicized elections like this one are one of the big reasons why,” says Alicia Bannon, a co-author of Bankrolling the Bench, a comprehensive report on spending in the 2013-14 judicial elections by Justice at Stake, the Brennan Center for Justice, and the National Institute on Money in State Politics. “When judges start looking like politicians in robes, the public may wonder if they can be trusted to decide cases fairly and impartially.”

From the Brennan Center:

Perhaps the most glaring example of the harms that can come from politicization of judicial races is the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 4-2 decision last year to end an investigation into Scott Walker. The “John Doe” probe examined whether independent groups had illegally coordinated with Walker’s recall campaign in 2012. Each justice who supported ending the investigation ran campaigns that had benefited from the same groups under investigation for the coordination.

“I gotta tell you, it makes me want to weep,” E. Michael McCann, former Milwaukee County District Attorney and the state's longest serving prosecutor, said to the Capital Times. “You look at that as a temple. When you’re a lawyer, this is our temple… the final arbiter is the Supreme Court and you want it pristine, pure.”

“I think people lose faith that the court is anything but a political machine and if people don’t respect the judicial process, the whole of the judiciary as checks and balances on the government, and protection of rights [is lost],” she said. [...] “You don’t have to be paranoid to think that when someone is willing to spend millions to get someone else elected to an office that pays $150,000 per year, that they expect a return on their investment,” said [former] Judge Timothy Vocke[.]

The fight for campaign finance and judicial election reform continues. In the meantime, sadly, Wisconsin will have Bradley on the state’s highest bench until 2026.