NY Times: "Liberal Wrath in Connecticut"

The Metro Section of tomorrow's New York Times contains a lengthy article on the upcoming Democrat convention battle between Sen. Lieberman and Ned Lamont. I would consider it a "must read" and you can access it by clicking the title of this post.

As a Republican, I am very much looking forward to the convention vote as it will show whether Connecticut is a "progressive state" as Mr. Lamont states in the article or more in keeping with its nickname: The Land of Steady Habits.

Further, with a primary all but certain it will be interesting to see how the convention vote tally compares to the primary results. One issue of note: I think it's terrible that the primary will be held August 8. How many voters are out of state vacationing at that time?

CT Bar Association Finds Bryant Unqualified

Today the Connecticut Bar Association announced that, like the American Bar Association, it had found Superior Court Judge Vanessa Bryant "not qualified" to be a U.S. District Judge. (To access that story, please click on the headline of this post.)

On Wednesday, various groups came out in favor of Judge Bryant's nomination. You can access the Hartford Courant's coverage here: http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-ctbryant0517.artmay17,0,6254832.story

The key question, of course, is what effect these ratings will ultimately have on the nomination. The NY Times reported on May 6 that the rating "makes Judge Bryant only the sixth nominee out of 445 jurists since 1999 to be deemed not qualified to serve. Of the five others to receive unqualified rankings, three were later confirmed by the United States Senate and two withdrew from consideration."

An additional question comes to mind: if Judge Bryant's nomination fails, will she continue as a Superior Court Judge? According to Judge Bryant's resume, she was confirmed to the Superior Court in 1998, which would mean that her term is up this year. It remains to be seen whether these evaluations will have any effect on her renomination to the state bench, but certainly it's an issue that will be addressed. Of course, the renomination process has become a farce of late, with several controversial judges -- including a judge who admitted to committing two misdemeanors -- being renominated and confirmed.

Federal Court Nominee Found "Not Qualified" by ABA

Today the American Bar Association ("ABA") announced that Superior Court Judge Vanessa Bryant, currently nominated by President Bush for a vacancy on our U.S. District Court, is "not qualified" for that position. The Hartford Courant reports:

Superior Court Judge Vanessa L. Bryant would be the first black woman named as a federal judge in New England. Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell recommended her to the president after U.S. District Judge Dominic J. Squatrito left his seat in November 2004 for a reduced caseload as a senior judge.

"A majority of the committee is of the opinion that Vanessa L. Bryant is not qualified for appointment as judge of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut," Stephen L. Tober, chairman of the ABA Committee on the Federal Judiciary, wrote in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

The ABA rates every nomination to the federal bench for Congress. Bryant's rating was released publicly Friday morning.

The "not qualified" rating is the lowest of three ratings the committee issues. A substantial majority of the committee found her not qualified while a minority found her qualified.

The highest rating is "well qualified."

-----

Consider this yet another setback for our judiciary. If a sitting superior court judge is unqualified to be a federal trial judge what does that say about our bench? Further, if the nomination is not confirmed how will future litigants feel about appearing before Judge Bryant? It will be interesting to see what happens with the nomination....