Conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley derided liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz on Tuesday for not recusing herself from a redistricting case the court could take up, saying any decision in the case was predetermined and "rigged" — the same term Protasiewicz used to describe the state's current legislative maps.

Bradley's critique came in a lone dissent to an order from the court calling for the Wisconsin Elections Commission to respond to liberals' request for the high court to directly accept a lawsuit seeking to redraw the state's legislative maps.

In a blistering dissent to that order, Bradley called the case "predetermined" and pointed out the $10 million Protasiewicz received from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, which Bradley called the "Democrat Party of Wisconsin."

Referring to the newfound 4-3 liberal majority, Bradley said, "These four justices will adopt new maps to shift power away from Republicans and bestow an electoral advantage for Democrat candidates, fulfilling one of Protasiewicz's many promises to the principal funder of her campaign."

Protasiewicz has said she would recuse herself from cases involving the state's Democratic Party, but the group isn't directly involved in either of the two cases seeking to redraw the state's legislative boundaries, which experts say are among the most gerrymandered in the country.

Republicans have repeatedly called for Protasiewicz to recuse herself from redistricting cases after calling the maps rigged on the campaign trail. Protasiewicz said she wouldn't recuse herself from redistricting cases.

"Entertaining these claims makes a mockery of our justice system, degrades this court as an institution, and showcases that justice is now for sale in Wisconsin," Bradley said. "'Rigged' is indeed an apt description — for this case."

Protasiewicz didn't respond to a request for comment.

In her dissent, Bradley references a U.S. Supreme Court case that found a judge had to recuse himself from a case because he received a $3 million donation from a litigant.

"The probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable," the court found.

Beyond calls for recusal, conservatives have repeatedly alleged Protasiewicz has violated a provision in the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct that bars candidates from making “pledges, promises, or commitments” regarding issues, controversies or cases likely to come before the high court.

But a decision in a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court case, Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, disputed the validity of a similar prohibition in Minnesota. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court found judicial candidates have a First Amendment right to announce “their views on disputed legal and political issues.”

“We have never allowed the government to prohibit candidates from communicating relevant information to voters during an election, and we do not begin doing so today,” former conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in that ruling.

Separately, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, said he would consider impeaching Protasiewicz if she doesn't recuse herself from the redistricting cases.

"You cannot have a person who runs for the court prejudging a case and being open about it, and then acting on the case as if you're an impartial observer," he told a conservative WSAU radio host last week.

The Assembly can impeach an official with a majority vote "based on specific reasons: corrupt conduct in office or for the commission of a crime or misdemeanor,” according to a Wisconsin Legislative Council memo.

After a meeting in early August to overhaul the Wisconsin Supreme Court's rules and procedures, the liberal justices announced the creation of a bipartisan task force to study the issue of recusal and present recommendations to the court. But it's unclear whether those recommendations would come before the conclusion of the redistricting and abortion cases that may come before the court.