Sure looks like it. David Nir at Daily Kos has done a fine job of assembling the evidence. I’ll try to add to his good work.

It’s worth noting, by the way, that the question comes up because his opponent, JoAnn Kloppenberg, asserted just that point — that Prosser will prejudge cases — in several of her campaign statements, for example, in that March 22 candidate forum (which we commented on here):

Kloppenberg: “I, unlike my opponent, will approach cases with an open mind and without having prejudged the matters that come before the court.”

Nir’s point is that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is wrong in critiquing Kloppenberg for making that statement, since Kloppenberg is easily and demonstrably right.

So let’s go to the videotape. Has David Prosser prejudged future cases? (All emphasis below is mine.)

1. Prosser has indeed announced, out-loudly and proudly, that he will act as “a complement” to the Republican legislature and hard-right Governor (and David Koch wannabe-fanboy) Scott Walker. From an earlier article in that same paper, the Journal Sentinel:

Kloppenburg was responding to a news release issued Wednesday by Prosser’s campaign announcing he had hired Brian Nemoir as his campaign director. Nemoir was quoted in that release as saying: “Our campaign efforts will include building an organization that will return Justice Prosser to the bench, protecting the conservative judicial majority and acting as a common sense complement to both the new administration and Legislature.”

Is he promising to hand a trifecta to “conservatives” — all three branches of Wisconsin government, all controlled by a coordinated cadre of Movement operatives? Sure sounds like it to me.

2. That same campaign director says that Prosser’s ideology “closely mirrors” that of Gov. Walker (pdf):

When his top aide was asked to explain his statement since judges are supposed to be independent, he said Prosser’s ideology “closely mirrors” Walker’s. Not surprisingly, when Prosser and Walker served in the state legislature together, David Prosser and Scott Walker voted the same way 95% of the time.

3. Prosser has already made up his mind on challenges to Republican redistricting, in addition to Walker’s budget bill. From Uppity Wisconsin:

In a video interview for the Dane County Republican Party, Prosser, a former GOP legislator, also warns that redistricting is likely to come before the court, and he and his conservative colleagues “don’t want any part of legislative redistricting.”

If you click the embedded link, you get a pretty funny YouTube clip in which Prosser says he’s a “stabilizing source on the Court” who is often “the person who is turned to [by other justices] to compromise differences.” Right; just the opposite of what we know to be true. But the money quote on redistricting is this one:

Prosser: “[P]art of the motivation for the candidates running against me is to have a block of four people who will reapportion the legislature along more liberal lines whereas the conservative members of the Court don’t want any part of [challenges to] legislative redistricting.”

So the “conservative members” of the Wisconsin Supreme Court have already made up their shared collective mind about Republican redistricting. How is that not prejudgment? Uppity Wisconsin again:

Prosser, of course, has no idea what the grounds for a redistricting case might be, [and] he seems to be prejudging any redistricting case that might be brought before the court, regardless of the merits.

4. About abortion rulings, Prosser practices what Uppity Wisconsin calls the “wink and a nod” school of campaign promises. As in, “I can’t tell you what I’ll do, but if you think I’ll do the obvious, you’d be right.” Speaking to “Northwoods Patriot Radio” (from Eagle River; they are what you think they are):

STEVE: It is for sure and another thing that I’d like to point out that’s quite interesting, in the upcoming race for Supreme Court is that Justice Prosser is a pro-life candidate and the three opponents that he’s running against are not pro-life, so … I take it, Justice Prosser, that you hold life dearly and you believe that that is not something that is not [sic] to be messed with. PROSSER: Well, Steve, I have to be very careful what I say because I cannot commit myself, I, as a judge … STEVE: I understand. KIM: Yeah. PROSSER: In deciding a case in a particular way. On the other hand, people can look at what I’ve done over a lifetime and kind of read between the lines.

Prosser’s whole sell is that he’s an out-loudly proud (and anti-gay) Republican who can deliver a Supreme Court majority for Walker, David Koch, and all those hungry angry “sex-loving sex-hating abortion-killing über-Christians” (my phrasing) hiding in Wisconsin’s dark places.

How is that not grounds for dismissal before he walks in the door?

By the way, on the subject of playing to win — if Prosser does succeed, he’s a walking and constant lawsuit every time he rules. How about it, progressives? All it takes is a will; the way is well trod.

You can volunteer to help JoAnn Kloppenberg here. Please do. The election is April 5. Organize and vote.

GP