ConnCon

Reps. Murphy and Courtney Vote AGAINST the Fairness Doctrine

2007-06-30T00:20:00.000-04:00

I've not seen any reporting in Connecticut on this yet, but yesterday the U.S. House passed an amendment 309-115 basically preventing reimposition of the ill-fated Fairness Doctrine. Most interestingly, although liberal Congressmen Rosa DeLauro and John Larson voted against the amendment, freshmen Congressmen Joe Courtney and Chris Murphy voted for free speech and the marketplace. You can access the full vote here.

State Dems: Tough on Lawful Gun Owners, Easy on 16 and 17 Year Old Criminals

2007-05-24T19:36:00.000-04:00

You have to read this stuff to believe it.

The Courant has coverage here of the bill concerning making criminals out of lawful gun owners who are the VICTIMS of theft. The bill passed the Senate 24-11 and now heads to the House.

Click here for coverage of the juvenille bill.

CT Dem Delegation: "No" on Funding the Troops

2007-05-24T19:17:00.000-04:00

We at ConnCon like to remind our readers that elections have consequences. Today's latest lesson of that can be found in a "breaking" story posted at 2:00 today on the Hartford Courant's website. (The Courant demonstrates its bias by titling the story "Democratic Congressmen Band Together on Iraq"; only because it is Dems does the Courant not point out WHAT they are banding together on.) The Courant is reporting:

The four Democratic members of the Connecticut House delegation banded together and said in a joint statement today they will oppose the Iraq spending plan, a plan with no timetables for withdrawing U.S. troops, and instead "demand legislation that includes consequences" for the Iraqis and "a plan to redeploy and then bring our troops home." In an unusual development, the members issued a four-paragraph statement, saying, "We will vote the will of our constituents in Connecticut and the American people -- voting against a measure that does not hold this administration accountable for its failed policy in Iraq or set a new direction. "We cannot in good conscience support a bill that keeps our troops in the middle of a bloody and chaotic civil war with no exit strategy and no timeline for redeploying our troops," they said. Making up their minds today were Reps. Joseph Courtney, D-2nd District, Rosa L. DeLauro, D-3rd District, and Chris Murphy, D-5th District. Rep. John B. Larson, D-1st District, announced his opposition Wednesday.

Amazingly, the Courant goes on to mention the motivation, perhaps to provide cover, as follows:
They were all under intense pressure from Connecticut anti-war activists who have been flooding their offices with e-mails and phone calls. A Connecticut Opposes the War newsletter issued today via e-mail, for instance, listed each member's phone number and reminded readers: "Democrats need to hold firm now in order to keep the pressure on Bush and Republican legislators."

Perhaps most interestingly, Rep. Murphy claimed he was compelled to vote against the spending bill because, according to the Courant, he "had been sent to Washington with a mandate to end the war." Voters in his district would be right to be confused about this point because last fall -- while running against Nancy Johnson -- Murphy notoriously danced around foreign policy issues.

In any event, it's illustrative that our Democrats have -- unlike the leadership of their party -- come out against the funding bill. Again, the 2006 election brought a lot of so-called "moderate" Democrats to Washington. That was not the case in Connecticut.

Governor Proposes Cap on Property Taxes, Dems Revolt

2007-03-28T21:57:00.000-04:00

The Hartford Courant reports:

Hoping to stem rising local taxes on homes and cars, the Republican governor said she is taking the unprecedented step to limit how much cities and towns can raise them. Under her plan, local property tax increases would be capped at 3 percent per year, with some exceptions.

We at ConnCon absolutely love the idea of capping property taxes so that they cannot double for 33 years! Property taxes are WAY too high and this is a very bold proposal, indeed. The Governor rightfully stated "There will be, I believe, a property tax revolt unless we get real relief. And we need to have that now."

Of course, no discussion of property tax relief would be complete without pointing out that the state Democrats have already come out against the proposal. Under the Governor's plan a town could "exceed the 3 percent cap with a two-thirds vote of the local governing body and a majority vote of the residents. There would also be exceptions for emergencies, such as a natural disaster." House Speaker, D-Milford, reacted harshly stating "This plan ... would create chaos, more bureaucracy, threaten basic services in every town. Can you imagine 169 towns holding referendums on taxes?"

The Speaker's "concerns" expose the fact that he doesn't think taxpayers ought to have a say in how much they are taxed! Imagine, voters actually deciding how much the government needs! What a concept!

We at ConnCon will keep a close eye on this one....

Support the Troops?

2007-03-28T21:47:00.000-04:00

Thanks to a long-time ConnCon reader for pointing out this story from Saturday's Hartford Courant. The article notes that the West Hartford Board of Education, by a 4-3 vote, voted in favor of HOLDING classes next Veteran's Day.

The message sent by the vote was not lost on dissenting board member Tom Fiorentino, who, according to the Courant "explained that the decision was ill-timed and 'unwise,' given the country's ongoing military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan." Proponents of the decision claimed it "would give the town's veterans and military staff an opportunity to participate in recognition ceremonies." By that logic, why not hold classes on other holidays? Would not holding classes on Martin Luther King Day allow for recognition of Dr. King's efforts?

We at ConnCon think the vote -- coupled with a recent anti-war "forum" held in the town where Rep. Larson was told to impeach the President -- is a sad commentary on the Town of West Hartford.

Rep. Murphy Unmasked, Dissed on Rush Limbaugh Program

2007-02-28T23:09:00.000-05:00

Thanks to a reader for pointing out that our freshman from the Fifth District, Rep. Chris Murphy, was the subject of discussion midway through the Rush Limbaugh radio program on Monday.

Rush had the following exchange with "Sean" from Woodbury, CT:

CALLER: Hi, Rush. I wanted to call because I visited my newly elected Democrat Congressman Chris Murphy on Friday in a town hall meeting, and for about the first half hour of the meeting he sat there and berated this country, said it's our fault we have terrorism in the world. We caused it. The president's incompetent. The military can't win. It was all the stuff you talk about all the time. I never, ever imagined that liberals are this bad. I've been a listener for a long time, and I guess until you see it, you just can't believe it -- and one of the things he did mention (I know you've been talking about the cutting off funding) he actually admitted that the Democrats are going to have a vote on cutting off funding.

RUSH: Oh, I don't... Well, he may think that. I'll be curious to see if that really, really happens. They'll only do it if they know they're going to lose it. Unless it looks like the surge is working and unless there's real progress, they can't allow that to happen. They cannot permit victory. They own defeat. They must secure defeat! So he could be telling you the truth. But I want to ask you something. I'm really serious about this, Sean -- and don't take it personally. I'm asking this for my own education. How long have you listened to this broadcast?

CALLER: I don't remember, but I used to watch you on TV when I was younger.

RUSH: All right.

CALLER: I'll be 30 this year, and I've been listening and paying attention to you, I would say I listen every day for probably a good five or six years.

RUSH: Okay, five or six years. The television show was 1992 to 1996. So you've got a long history with this program, and you admit that throughout this long history, you have heard me eloquently, precisely describe liberals -- and yet that wasn't quite enough to get you to fully accept it, believe it, or understand it. You still had to see it in order to believe it. You had to be exposed to it personally in order to believe it. Why did you doubt me?

CALLER: Rush, I didn't doubt you. I think that it's just something so opposite of what my beliefs are that... I don't know. I certainly don't doubt you.

RUSH: Exactly right, and here's the point that I want to make. You, like a lot of people in this audience, I say what I say about liberals, that they own defeat, that they want America to lose. Most Americans do not want to think that there are other Americans who believe and desire such things. So they'll think I might be exaggerating or that I'm wrong, or even if they like me, "Ah, Rush is kind of off, going off his rocker again here today," because they just don't want to believe it. Most Americans don't want believe that there is a political party with a high number of members elected who actually want the worst for their country, and until you see it like you did, you don't believe it, because you don't want to believe it.

You think nobody could really dislike their country that much. These people hate George W. Bush; they don't even know him! How do you explain the vitriol, the personal hatred that these people have for Bush -- not just elected Democrats, Hollywood types and so forth -- who have never even met him? There is an explanation for it, but even when you hear 'em say it, it doesn't really register. So I'm glad you got to hear this guy. I'm glad that you had a way to personally validate what you heard on this program, because it underscores the fact of just how pervasively bad and extreme and dangerous that it is when people hear the truth but don't want to accept it because they don't want to believe people like that really exist in the country and have positions of power. Exactly right, right?

CALLER: Exactly. I'm still in shock. It's like three or four days later. He opened the microphone, I got up, said a few words, nothing that you'd be overly proud of, and then I just walked out, and I had about ten people -- there were at least 300 people there, and about ten people clapped for me, and everyone else looked like they were ready to lynch me, and it was really --

RUSH: What do you mean I wouldn't be proud? You got up in the lion's den and you took the guy on! You may not think that you said anything as well as you could have said it, but you still got up and said it. That's gold star behavior.

CALLER: Well, I did say to him, I said that, "You know, you guys are going to get us killed and we're going to fight this war whether you want to or not. Next time it's going to be on the streets of New York." I really bit my tongue. I really wanted to say some really rude and profane things, but I felt that it was better to take the high road.

RUSH: It was probably wise you didn't do that because you wanted to walk out of there with some credibility with what you said, and if you'd have called the guy names or treated him the way he's describing Bush, everybody else, that crowd would have dismissed you. So you did the right thing. Congratulations. (applauding)

CALLER: I'm glad I made you proud, Rush. You make me proud every day.

RUSH: Thank you, then we're mutually proud and that's progress. I'm glad you called. I appreciate that story.

We've recently posted on Rep. Murphy's amazingly liberal stances -- many of which were masked last fall -- and we add this to the list. It's also worth noting that Rep. Murphy is touting his most recent late night speech on his website. We've watched the speech and were amazed at the manner in which Rep. Murphy chose to defend his vote on the non-binding (!) resolution on the war in Iraq. Perhaps most appalling was Murphy's possibly anti-Israel comment combined with his insult toward Americans and his assertion that American attitude was to blame for the deep-seated hatred our enemies harbor toward us:

We need to come to grips with the fact that we live in a world in which our own supposed allies create societies that foster extremism and violence amongst their most marginalized members. And at the same time our nation often strangely views cultural and detachment as a virtue rather than a weakness. This combination CAUSES those that speak different politicaltongues and those that worship different Gods to look upon our great nation with undeserved derision. (Emphasis added)

No doubt we are witnessing the beginning of a very long and very liberal career. The best we can do is post these comments in the hopes that the voters of the Fifth District will see Rep. Murphy for who he is: a slick, smooth, blame America first liberal.

ABA Switch: Bryant Now Rated Qualified

2007-02-27T22:11:00.000-05:00

The Hartford Courant is reporting that a "substantial minority" of a newly constituted American Bar Association panel has found Superior Court Judge Vanessa Bryant "qualified" to be a U.S. District Court Judge. A "minority of the committee" believes Judge Bryant is "not qualified."

On May 5, 2006, we reported:

"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.

Given the fact that ALL politicians involved in the process (Sens. Dodd and Lieberman, Governor Rell and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal) have continued to press the nomination despite a finding of "unqualified" by both the ABA and the CT Bar Association it's tempting to say that politics is the explanation for the ABA's change of heart. (Despite those evaluations, Judge Bryant was recently confirmed unanimously for a fresh eight year term on the state bench.)

However, the Courant reports:

Roberta D. Liebenberg, the committee chairwoman, said the panel regularly conducts a supplemental evaluation for nominees whose names were withdrawn from consideration. President Bush renominated Bryant in January."This is not something that is out of the ordinary. This is something that is consistent with our standardized procedures," she said. About half of the committee members who reconsidered Bryant's nomination are new to the panel, Liebenberg said.

Whatever the reason for the change, it's pretty clear that Judge Bryant will soon be ascending to the federal bench in Hartford.

"No" Vote

2007-02-26T19:15:00.001-05:00

On February 20, Governor Rell nominated Appellate Court Judge Chase T. Rogers to be Chief Justice of our Supreme Court. (We first reported that Judge Rogers was under consideration here.) Governor Rell's Press Release notes that Judge Rogers "was confirmed March 15[, 2006 to the Appellate Court] on votes of 139-1 in the House of Representatives and 34-1 in the Senate." Because judicial confirmation votes are notoriously (i.e. negligently) unanimous -- even in the case of Judge Vanessa Bryant who has been rated as unqualified to be a federal judge by both the state and federal bar associations -- the two "no" votes piqued our curiosity. Who voted no, and why? Further investigation has yielded few details.

For starters, it appears that the Governor is incorrect as to the tally in the House of Representatives. According to the roll call here, (click on "House Roll Call Vote 6") the vote was unanimous, 141-0, in favor of the nomination. In the Senate, the vote was somewhat different than reported by the Governor, too. It was 35-1 in favor of the nomination. (See here, click on "Senate Roll Call Vote 11 ADOPT.) The lone "no" vote was cast by Senator Gary D. LeBeau, of East Hartford, pictured above.

We at ConnCon cannot find any press release explaining Senator LeBeau's no vote, but will endeavor to do so. Additionally, it will be interesting to see if Senator LeBeau repeats his no vote on the nomination this time.

CORRECTION: Representative Mike Lawlor has informed us that we at ConnCon have misread the vote tally and that (now retired) Sen. Gunther and NOT Senator LeBeau voted "no" on the nomination. Thanks to Rep. Lawlor for pointing out our mistake.

A Vote and a Lesson

2007-02-17T13:41:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, by a vote of 246-192 the United States House of Representatives -- led by the Democrats -- passed the resolution to the right. (Courtesy of the Wall Street Journal.)

Our own congressional delegation voted 4-1 in favor of the resolution. No doubt this is the latest demonstration of the far-lefts' "support the troops but not the mission" mantra, a concept we at ConnCon take issue with but will leave for later discussion. But, it's also a lesson in how elections have consequences. Had this resolution been proposed in, say October 2006, our state delegation would have opposed it 3-2, with Reps. Johnson, Simmons, and Shays voting against. But, the liberal winds blew pervasively through Connecticut last November and, unlike much of the rest of the country, our moderate Republicans were replaced (with the exception of Shays) by tow-the-line liberals.

It's said that a picture says a thousand words. If so, have a look at the photos above, taken just after the vote. The first is of freshman congressman Christopher Murhpy from our Fifth District, who positioned himself prominently behind the group of young Democrats speaking in favor of the resolution. The other is of our new speaker, Nancy Pelosi, smiling just after the resolution, reminiscent of President Clinton smiling in the Rose Garden after the ill-fated Oslo Agreement.

Elections have consequences, and this one is severe.

Dodd Switcheroo

2007-01-28T20:40:00.000-05:00

The following quotes from Senator Dodd illustrate the fact that he assumes positions on matters of grave importance such as war based not on philosophy or principal, but on politics.

Sen. Chris Dodd, Oct. 3, 2004:
Certainly I think today people realize here that -- that the number of troops we have there, given the magnitude of the problem, given the problems we're facing, probably has to be increased.

Sen. Chris Dodd, Jan. 17, 2007: I don't think it is at all. The idea that further military, escalating military, involvement is going to produce the desired results will work -- I'm very much opposed it.

WSJ: Income Tax in Connecticut a Disaster

2007-01-28T20:36:00.000-05:00

The editorial page of Thursday's Wall Street Journal contained the following passage:

The latest state to adopt an income tax was Connecticut in 1991, but a new report by the Yankee Institute reveals that the tax has been a calamity. The state has ranked last in employment growth since 1991, losing 240,000 of its native born citizens between 1991-2002. No other state has since enacted an income tax, and lawmakers in Georgia, Missouri and South Carolina say Connecticut is now the model for how not to run a state economy.

Bryant Emotional Before Judiciary Committee

2007-01-21T15:04:00.000-05:00

Back in May, I was alone in pointing out that one odd aspect of the negative reaction by the CT Bar Association towards the nomination of Vanessa Bryant was that the state legislature would soon be deciding whether to reappoint her to the state bench. (Most state judges serve eight year terms at which they must be reappointed. In almost every case reappointment is a formality.) Sure enough, on Friday the legislature dealt with the delicate issue of possibly reappointing a state judge deemed unqualified by both the state and federal bar associations.

The Connecticut Law Tribune reports :

Hartford Superior Court Judge Vanessa L. Bryant, also a nominee for a U.S. District Court judgeship, had the unpleasant task of explaining to the committee why the American Bar Association recommended against her federal court appointment on grounds of temperament and experience.

Rep. Arthur O’Neil, R-Southbury, read from the scathing ABA report, which quoted comments from lawyers and judges gathered by New Hampshire attorney Stephen L. Tober of the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. In it, Bryant was described as: “very rigid, tough, formalistic”; “immovable and intractable”; “very hard on staff’; “curt, difficult and unreasonable”; “impatient”; “ill-tempered and short with those appearing before her”; “domineering and exasperated with lawyers”; “arrogant and unreasonable”; “contentious and short-tempered’; “tough and stern”; “makes up her mind quickly, won’t change her opinion, brusque”; “erratic”; “rushes to judgment and difficult to change her mind.”

Bryant said, like any other judge, she has “on occasion been impatient. There are times I was not as pleasant as I would like to have been. We all have good days and bad days.”

At one point in the questioning, Bryant choked up and was near tears when she said, “I am very saddened to read that judges made negative statements.” She said she “felt support from those on the federal bench and the state bench who actually know me.”

‘Mass Character Assassination’

Bryant said the ABA procedures require negative statements to be presented to the candidate to rebut or place in context, but that “none of those comments were shared with me,” and she only learned of them when presented with the ABA report on the eve of her confirmation hearing last fall.

Sen. Edwin A. Gomez, D- Bridgeport, said the comments about Bryant were “mass character assassination,” and said he was glad Bryant could come before the state Judiciary Committee and defend herself.

She said the Judicial Branch evaluations, filled out by lawyers and jurors right after a trial, reflected positively on her demeanor and abilities. And the fact that she’d tried two murder cases in her first two years on the bench, Bryant said, were evidence of her ability to quickly get up to speed.

Bryant was primarily a bonding and bankruptcy lawyer in private practice, before becoming a judge eight years ago. As the presiding judge for civil matters in Hartford, she concentrated on administrative work, and was not able to do courtroom work extensively, which the ABA counted against her.

In a May 18, 2006, letter, the Connecticut Bar Association’s Federal Judiciary Committee wrote to the federal Judiciary Committee that it also considered Bryant “not qualified.”

Rep. Gonzalez, R-Hartford, saw the criticism as racially motivated. “I’m proud to be a Latina, proud to be Puerto Rican; I feel it in my veins. We have to recognize that as a minority, we have a lot of problems, and I wish you the best,” she told Bryant, who is African-American.

Rep. Kenneth P. Green, D-Bloomfield, asked Bryant if she’d ever been consulted by another judge about her demeanor. Bryant recalled three occasions. One was a “miscommunication” with a lawyer that led to Hartford Superior Court Judge John J. Langenbach’s intervening.

A second such incident occurred when a partner in a firm requested a continuance because his associate on a case was called to Iraq. Bryant denied the continuance, but after getting a call from another judge, relented. The third instance was also due to Bryant denying a continuance, which she also granted after a judge asked her to reconsider, she said.

Gonzalez asked, doesn’t that mean those judges don’t respect your opinion?

“I don’t see it that way,” said Bryant, who’s demeanor slowly thawed during the questioning. She said she viewed the calls as helpful tips. “They say, ‘I’m coachable. I want to be trained. I want to be a good judge.’ I know my judgment isn’t perfect. If I haven’t made a good decision, I want to know that.”

“Good answer,” said Gonzalez.

Dodd Enters Presidential Sweepstakes

2007-01-11T23:53:00.000-05:00

This morning -- on a NEW YORK radio station, no less -- Senator Chris Dodd announced that he is entering the Presidential sweepstakes. My own view is that we will need an egg timer to record the length of our senior senator's quest. Accordingly, we at ConnCon will keep track of how long Sen. Dodd remains in the race. While we certainly wish him luck, we can't help wonder how many waitresses in New Hampshire and Iowa are concerned. :)

Vanessa Bryant Renominated

2007-01-10T22:59:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, President Bush renominated Superior Court Judge Vanessa L. Bryant to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Judge Bryant's nomination has been controversial: she received a rare rating of unqualified by both the Connecticut and American Bar Associations, placing her in an extremely small category of nominees. (See here and here for my coverage of those announcements.) Although she has the backing of the Governor, both our senators and the state attorney general (see here) her nomination -- along with several highly controversial nominations -- languished last fall.

Rell Shuns Borden?

2007-01-06T01:06:00.000-05:00

Gubernatorial swearing in ceremonies in Connecticut, like most states, are typically conducted by the chief justice. Indeed, Rell was sworn in by Chief Justice Sullivan in 2004 and Governor Rowland was sworn in by the previous two chief justices in his three previous swearings in. David Borden is the current acting chief justice and would be the logical candidate to perform the ceremony. However, on Wednesday Governor Rell deviated from that well-established procedure by having U.S. Senior District Judge Alan Nevas (see picture at left) swear her in. This might be viewed as a meaningless -- albeit odd -- deviation from usual practice, except for the fact that Justice Borden (and various members of the court) are currently wrapped up in controversy over the withdrawn nomination of Justice Zarella to be chief justice. See my previous coverage of that issue here and here. It's not a stretch to view Rell's decision as distancing herself from not only Borden, but the entire court.

Spitzer Gives Over $10,000 to Lieberman

2006-12-28T21:56:00.000-05:00

The Journal Inquirer has a lengthy article about the many large donations received by Senator Lieberman in his successful reelection campaign. Not only do the figures show that Lieberman was in a "New York State of Mind" but they also illustrate that the cold treatment Senator Lieberman received here at home by his own party did not exist elsewhere. For example, while Lieberman's own Attorney General (and successor in that office) Richard Blumenthal backed Lamont, NY's Attorney General, Governor-elect, and all-around rising star Eliot Spitzer donated over $10,000 to Sen. Lieberman. (Mayor Bloomberg also donated over $10,000 to Lieberman, raised money for him and even campaigned for him in Connecticut. To see the two of them campaigning at the Stamford train station, click here.)

Murder Rate in New Haven UP 60%

2006-12-27T22:51:00.000-05:00

As part of a larger story concerning an increase in urban murders nationwide, the AP reports:

In New Haven, Conn., there were 23 homicides as of Tuesday, compared with 15 in 2004 and in 2005. Police Chief Francisco Ortiz said that about half of this year's killings involve young people settling disputes with guns instead of fists.

"They're all struggling with this thing about respect and pride," Ortiz said. "It's about respect. It's about revenge. It's about having a reputation. It's about turf and it's about girls."

(For the record, there was another homicide in the city of New Haven AFTER Tuesday, bringing the total homicides for the year up to 24, a whopping 60% increase.)

My question is this: where was this figure when Mayor DeStefano was touting his leadership of the city of New Haven as the reason he deserved to be elected Governor? It seems to me that the media should have reported on such a staggering and important statistic during the campaign. Of course, we know now that it mattered little. Still, it is a glowing example of media bias.

State Holiday?

2006-12-27T22:42:00.000-05:00

In June 2004, just days before resigning his office in disgrace, Governor Rowland ordered that all state offices be closed on June 11, 2004 to honor the death of President Ronald Reagan. (For the Executive Order, click here.)

Will Governor Rell extend the same courtesy to President Ford?

President Ford Dead at 93

2006-12-26T23:55:00.000-05:00

The AP reported just four minutes ago that Gerald Ford, 38th President of the United States, has died.

Rell's Short List for Chief Justice

2006-12-06T22:53:00.000-05:00

According to The Connecticut Law Tribune -- see link above -- in addition to the current members of the Supreme Court Governor Rell's short list contains the following names:

Bridgeport Superior Court Judge Richard E. Arnold, a Republican from Orange.

Superior Court Judge Dennis G. Eveleigh, a Hamden Democrat.

Appellate Court Judge Chase T. Rogers, a registered independent from New Canaan.

Anne C. Dranginis, a partner at Hartford’s Rome McGuigan and retired Appellate Court Judge.

Appellate Court Judge C. Ian McLachlan, of Chester.

Oddly enough, the Law Tribune reports that two of the candidates are married to sitting state judges. Everleigh lives in Hamden with his wife, Superior Court Judge Carol A. Wolven. McLachlan is married to Superior Court Judge Cynthia K. Swienton.

The other current Supreme Court Justices are also eligible. They include Acting Chief Justice David Borden, a West Hartford Democrat, Associate Justice Peter T. Zarella, a West Hartford Republican, Associate Justice Richard N. Palmer, a Democrat living in Cromwell, Justice Joette Katz, (D) of Fairfield, Justice Flemming L. Norcott Jr., (D) of New Haven, and Justice Christine S. Vertefeuille, (D) of Cheshire.

Notably absent from the list is Appellate Court Judge Barry R. Schaller. The 68 year old jurist from Guilford, who enjoys immense respect from both bench and bar, was previously rumored to be the leading candidate.

Dodd's Decision

2006-12-05T19:59:00.000-05:00

Today's Hartford Courant contains a puff piece lauding Sen. Dodd for sacking the nomination of John Bolton to be United Nations ambassador. The Courant attempts to provide cover for Dodd's actions by explaining,

The 26-year Senate veteran nearly always goes along with presidential appointees. Dodd strongly believes that even when he disagrees with a president's choice, the chief executive has the right to have his own people, unless there's some compelling reason to object.

The Courant described Dodd's current objection as follows

Dodd said Monday that his "most fundamental reservation" about Bolton was "rewarding someone who has done serious harm in attempting to skew intelligence at the very time when our nation needs careful and accurate information and analysis. That's what Mr. Bolton did when he attempted to intimidate two U.S. intelligence analysts."

Today's Wall Street Journal contains a critical analysis of Dodd's decision, noting Ambassador Bolton's many accomplishments and explaining why his leadership is needed at this crucial time

Mr. Bolton served with exemplary tact at Turtle Bay, notwithstanding critics who said he wouldn't. More important, he has stood forcefully for American interests despite the leaks and sniping from the office of Secretary General Kofi Annan. He helped to corral votes for resolutions isolating Iran and North Korea for their nuclear programs. He was assailed for leading the fight against Mr. Annan's "reformed" Human Rights Council, but he and the U.S. are now looking prescient as that Council descends into one more Israel-bashing cabal. He also fought harder for U.N. reform than have his critics who claim to want that corrupt institution to lead the world in providing collective security.

"Realism" is back in foreign policy fashion (see the editorial on Iran), and we only wish some of that school's alleged practitioners were as realistic as Mr. Bolton. He has understood that the essence of realism is, or ought to be, to see the world as it is and speak with moral clarity about it. He offended America's enemies because he looked at their behavior and refused to excuse it. This is discomfiting to those who prefer to believe that every enemy can be appeased with talk, and that every dispute can be settled with a treaty.

It is no small diplomatic irony that, as an Undersecretary at the State Department in President Bush's first term, Mr. Bolton organized the Proliferation Security Initiative that is the one effective multilateral restraint against the spread of WMD. And it does not speak well for the American political system that it can't find a place in government at this dangerous moment in history for one of the world's leading anti-proliferation experts.

The decision by newly ascendant Democrats -- Mr. Dodd in particular -- to deny Mr. Bolton a confirmation vote on the Senate floor shows that they value partisan animosity above having a seasoned negotiator at the U.N. Mr. Bolton's graceful exit yesterday is further evidence that he deserved better, but so did American interests.

Dodd's actions will no doubt embolden our enemies and undermine the President at this, the most critical of times. While his actions are no doubt an attempt to curry favor with the far left members of his party at a time when he is seeking their approval to be President, it is we, the American people who are the losers.

Exposing Rell

2006-11-07T00:03:00.000-05:00

Governor Rell will likely win by twenty points today. However, as explained by Colin McEnroe, her record on helping members of her party has been awful and unexcusable.

Peggy Noonan's Swan Song to Rick Santorum

2006-11-07T00:01:00.000-05:00

Although Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) is not a Connecticut politician, I wholeheartedly recommend the wonderful Peggy Noonan's most recent column on him.

Novak's Final Predictions: Shays and Johnson Lose, Simmons to Win

2006-11-06T23:55:00.000-05:00

Bob Novak's final predictions are in. Locally, he predicts that Reps. Johnson and Shays will lose and that all other incumbent Congressmen -- including Rob Simmons -- will win. Overall, he predicts that the Republicans will have a net loss of two seats in the sentate and nineteen (and control) in the house.

The Today Show Poll Results: Murphy "Cleft Palate" Ad Nastiest in the Country

2006-11-02T21:37:00.000-05:00

This morning the Today Show ran a segment on political ads. Part of the segment included running three ads nominated for "nastiest." Surprisingly, one of the ads was the infamous "Cleft Palate" ad run by Chris Murphy (D), candidate for Congress from the 5th Congressional District. Viewers were invited to vote online for what they considered to be the nastiest ad. At the time of this posting, the almost 5,000 voters OVERWHELMINGLY voted Murphy's ad the nastiest in the country. The results are linked above.

Bob Novak Suggests Murphy May Defeat Johnson

2006-11-02T21:14:00.000-05:00

As one of a very small list of pundits who predicted the Republican takeover in 1994, Bob Novak's predictions carry great weight. Today, Bob Novak's column discussed the Murphy-Johnson (5th District) Congressional race. Novak praised Murphy's campaign to date, calling it "top-notch" and noted that Johnson was running out of time:

Connecticut-5: After four polls, it is evident Rep. Nancy Johnson (R) has fallen behind State Sen. Chris Murphy (D), who has run a top-notch campaign against one of the House's most entrenched incumbents. But Johnson also appears to have narrowed the gap since she first fell behind 10 days ago. She has been hurt by large independent expenditures against her, and she is only marginally ahead now in cash on hand.

Her get-out the vote operation is reportedly the most active of the three endangered Republicans in Connecticut, and her new ad attacking Murphy is humorous and effective, but it may represent her last Hail Mary push. Johnson has always been on difficult turf, and her time to make a comeback is running out fast. Leaning Democratic Takeover.

Quick "Hits" With One Week to Go

2006-10-31T23:35:00.000-05:00

A few quick hits from the campaign trail:

- The NY Times has not endorsed one Republican running for national office for the first time since Watergate.

- On Sunday, Sen. John Kerry put his foot firmly in his mouth by telling a group of college students:

"You know, education -- if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Unbelievably, his comments were SUPPORTED by at least one prominent Democrat. CNN reports "Vietnam veteran and former U.S. Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia defended Kerry and applauded the senator for showing 'our party how to fight back with the truth.'"
Watch Senator Kerry's remarks for yourself here

- On Wednesday, November 1, the NY Times will publish a remarkably reflective piece on Ned Lamont's attempt to purchase himself a Senate seat for over $12M. Lamont, who has constantly referred to the fact that he "built a business from scratch" despite the fact that he was a child of privilege is not exactly your average Connecticut resident. The Times reports:

Mr. Lamont often mentions his use of an environmentally correct vehicle, a Ford hybrid, on the campaign trail, but Mr. Lamont and his wife also own a Lexus convertible, a Mercedes, a Volvo, a Jaguar and an electric Gem they keep at their vacation home in Maine. Their children attend private schools in Greenwich, where, until recently, they belonged to an exclusive, mostly white country club, and their art collection includes a Norman Rockwell, “The Right to Know,” bought for $1.05 million.

[Query this: The NY Times calls a hybrid an environmentally "correct" vehicle. Doesn't that mean ALL non-hyrbid cars are "incorrect"?]

-If Senator Lieberman wins reelection, how will he treat the significant numbers of state and national Democrats -- including our senior senator -- that campaigned against him? I suspect the answer to that question depends on two facts: (1) whether the Democrats retake the Senate, and (2) whether Sen. Lieberman plans to run in 2012 at the age of 70.

Connecticut Federal Judge Strikes Police Officer With Car

2006-10-18T18:35:00.000-04:00

The New Haven Register is reporting:

The motorist who struck and critically injured a city police officer working a traffic detail Tuesday is a senior federal judge in New Haven, sources said.

John M. Walker, Jr., who is in his mid-60s, had been the chief judge for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for six years until Sept. 30, when he assumed senior status with the federal judiciary.

Police sources who spoke on condition of anonymity said Walker was the driver of the sport utility vehicle that struck Officer Dan Picagli, a 17-year veteran, on Chapel Street in Wooster Square. Picagli, 38, remains in critical condition at Yale-New Haven Hospital.

UPDATE: The Hartford Courant is reporting that Officer Picagli, a much revered member of his community, died Saturday night. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family.

Bryant Hearing Set for Tomorrow

2006-09-25T22:46:00.000-04:00

Tomorrow the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Superior Court Judge Vanessa Bryant to be a United States District Judge. As I previously posted here back in May, Judge Bryant is only the sixth federal court nominee out of 445 since 1999 to be rated unqualified by the American Bar Association. Of the five previous nominees to receive an "unqualified" rating, three were ultimately confirmed.

Notwithstanding the similar rating of the Connecticut Bar Association, Judge Bryant has the backing of both our senators, as well as Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. All three are expected to testify at tomorrow's hearing. For more details, see here.

The Hartford Courant has reported that if confirmed Judge Bryant would be the first female African American federal judge in New England.

WSJ Editorial: Lamont Race "Seems to Be Helping" CT GOP Congressional Delegation

2006-09-15T07:25:00.000-04:00

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal contained an editorial concerning the recent primaries throughout the nation. Notably, the Journal editorial board opined, "Ned Lamont's victory last month over Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman seems to be helping the GOP retain its three vulnerable House seats in that state." We'll see.

"Connecticut's biggest gas price gouger is government itself"

2006-09-15T07:17:00.000-04:00

Chris Powell, Managing Editor of the Journal Inquirer, has a fascinating piece on the factors contributing to the price of gasoline in the state. Consider it a "must read," especially in light of the recent reduction in the price of gas throughout the state.

The article begins:

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal strode before the television cameras in triumph the other day as he announced that six gasoline stations would pay the state $45,000 in fines for price gouging during the gasoline price spike after Hurricane Katrina last year. "Connecticut has zero tolerance for price gouging," the attorney general proclaimed.

But that proclamation is empty in light of the investigative reporting that was done soon thereafter by the Journal Inquirer's state Capitol bureau chief, Keith Phaneuf. He found that Michael Fox of the Gasoline and Automotive Service Dealers of America is right: The biggest price gouger in Connecticut is state government itself.

Later, the piece has the following startling revelation:

The gross receipts tax now stands as a hidden 6.3 percent sales tax on oil products and is scheduled to increase to 7 percent next July and 7.5 percent in July 2008. It is adding about 17 cents to the price of every gallon of gas at the pump, on top of the posted state excise tax of 25 cents. With the federal excise tax at 18.4 cents, Connecticut motorists pay about 60.4 cents per gallon in gas taxes, effectively a sales tax of about 20 percent, the second highest gas tax burden in the country, behind only California.

Check it out.

WP: All Three Republican Held Districts in CT Vulnerable

2006-09-04T14:27:00.000-04:00

On Sunday, the Washington Post ran a lengthy article (linked above) on the status of the Congressional elections. Of note is the Post's conclusion that all three Republican held districts in Connecticut "could flip in November."

Bill Buckley Weighs in on Lieberman/Lamont....Again

2006-08-28T19:11:00.000-04:00

Bill Buckley pieces are always worth reading but especially when they happen to deal with local issues. To wit, on August 12 Mr. Buckley wrote a great piece on our Senate race. The piece, linked above, begins:

It's no wonder that so much time is being given to the Democratic primary in Connecticut, and that so many voices are being heard. The ideological triumphalists proclaim it a great renewal in the Democratic Party, beginning with the glorious purge of Sen. Joseph Lieberman. There are, of course, difficulties with this reading.

Most obvious is the narrowness of the victory. Lieberman lost by four points. Moreover, only 20 percent of Connecticut Democrats actually participated in the purge, which would appear to make it less than plebiscitary.

According to one poll, 30 percent of Connecticut Democrats classify themselves as "liberal." But 60 percent of the anti-Lieberman vote was done by voters who classify themselves as liberal. This figure is not surprising. Candidates who challenge incumbents are usually inflamed by a single cause, and it was always clear that Ned Lamont wanted to rescind the war in Iraq and may have been encouraged enough by the primary victory to go one step further and attempt to rescind the war on terrorism; indeed his inflation is such that he might go yet further, by attempting to rescind terrorism.

The piece concludes with the following personal note:

Which leaves support for him enlivened by gratitude for his tenacity on the terrorist question. Plus also, for those who know him, personal respect, which, in the case of this journalist, dates back 40 years, when we shared a human burden -- an obligation to an old employee of the Yale Daily News -- and had no trouble in our long colloquy as friends and fellow Americans.

Breaking News: Judge Chatigny Cleared of Wrongdoing in Michael Ross Case by Ethics Panel

2006-07-27T21:12:00.000-04:00

The Connecticut Law Tribune Reports: "Chief U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Chatigny has been cleared of all misconduct concerning his role in the death penalty litigation of serial killer Michael Ross, the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit announced July 26." Several charges were lodged against Judge Chatigny both for his temperment in handling the case as well as his invovlement in the case as a private lawyer many years before. The Judicial Council found that none of the complaints -- brought by seven state prosecutors -- merited a finding of misconduct. Chatigny's conduct, however, was not without error. He apologized for some of the rhetoric he employed when conducting a meeting with Ross's counsel and also admitted that had he known about his prior involvement in the case he would have recused himself.

The federal judiciary polices itself with the exception of impeachment and removal proceedings. Recently, several Congressman have claimed that the judiciary is doing a poor job and that a third party should be tasked with the job. It will be interesting to see Congress's reaction to this latest round of policing.

Bill Buckley weighs in on Lamont/Lieberman: Conservative voters don't have very much to applaud in Lieberman

2006-07-27T00:35:00.000-04:00

Bill Buckley, a Stamford resident and unaffiliated voter, is arguably the most influential conservative thinker living in America. For over fifty years Mr. Buckley has helped shaped what it means to be a conservative. It's therefore not surprising that I am STRONGLY encouraging all to read his most recent missive, linked above, concerning the current status of the Lieberman candidacy. Mr. Buckley rightly points out that Sen. Lieberman is hardly a conservative and -- unlike the "Nedheads" -- uses Mr. Lieberman's voting record as the basis for that obvious conclusion. It's also worth noting that Mr. Buckely believes a Republican candidate "could" claim the seat, and finishes the piece with a bit of personal history:

"It is required, at this point, to note that the Republicans do have a candidate. His name is Alan Schlesinger. And if the New Democrats and the Revival Democrats have a bloody and internecine contest, the result could be ... a Republican senator from Connecticut! That was the chance Connecticut voters missed 26 years ago when they rejected the Republican candidate, who had for six years in the 1970s been acknowledged as the Sainted Junior Senator from New York, James L. Buckley.:

Kane Appointed Top Prosecutor, Chides Morano's Approach

2006-07-21T18:34:00.000-04:00

The Hartford Courant is reporting that Kevin Kane has been selected as the next Chief State's Attorney. Kevin Kane is curently the state's attorney in New London and, including himself, he had the backing of twelve of the thirteen state's attorneys.

Since the creation of the post of chief state's attorney there has been a running debate over who controls the state's powers of prosecution. Although the chief state's attorney is chosen by the Criminal Justice Commission, he does not have the power to hire the state's attorneys or to otherwise direct their efforts. Kane made it clear that he believes the state's attorneys are the heart of the system and he took issue with current Chief State's Attorney Chris Morano.

The Connecticut Law Tribune reports: "Kane said the difference between his approach and that of the current chief, Christopher L. Morano, would be that he would work together with the state’s attorneys and would recognize their contributions to the criminal justice system. “They’re the ones who handle the criminal work in the Division. They haven’t been getting the credit and attention they deserve,” he emphasized.....To Kane, the job of the chief “never” includes getting involved with prosecutorial decisions by a state’s attorney, unless in situations of malfeasance."

Even without Kane's comments, the his selection should be viewed as confirmation that the state's attorneys and NOT the chief state's attorney control the system. Banding together, the state's attorneys were effectively able to end the candidacy of the current chief state's attorney as well as select his successor. Thus ends the debate! Of course, the question of whether such a system is ideal -- or intended -- will remain.

Probable Cause Found in Charges Against Former Chief Justice Sullivan, Public Hearing Set for Sept 6

2006-07-20T00:28:00.000-04:00

Today the Council tasked with oversight of the state judiciary found probable cause to sustain charges leveled against former Chief Justice Sullivan. The charges surround CJ Sullivan's decision to withhold a Supreme Court opinion in the hopes of positively affecting the nomination of his successor. A public hearing has been set for September 6. Click on the link above for complete coverage from the Connecticut Law Tribune.

Top Prosecutor Withdraws Application

2006-07-18T22:55:00.000-04:00

The state's top prosecutor, Chris Morano, announced today that he will not seek to continue as the chief state's attorney, a position he has held since 2002. Morano's candidacy appears to have been dogged by (among other things) the lack of support from eleven of the thirteen state's attorneys all of whom filed a letter against his candidacy. Morano's withdrawal clearly demonstrates that it is the state's attorneys and not the chief state's attorney that runs our state prosecutorial system. Not exactly a glowing demonstration of our criminal justice system....

Taxpayer Funded Convention Center Loses Another Event Due to Labor Strife

2006-07-18T22:53:00.000-04:00

The Hartford Courant is reporting:

"The Connecticut Association of Nonprofits will have its Nov. 29 annual conference at the Farmington Marriott instead of the convention center, it announced Monday.

The association decided to move the event "on our own volition," having not been contacted by the unions involved, said association head Ron Cretaro.

In explaining the decision, Cretaro said the association didn't want its members - some of whom are unionized - or its guest speakers to have to cross a picket line. Also, the organization said it made its decision "out of respect for organized labor.""

Another setback for the Convention Center yet again based on a knee-jerk reaction to the disagreement between the operator of the Convention Center and several union groups.

PRRag.com: "Conn. 5th District: The seemingly insurmountable incumbent"

2006-07-05T18:53:00.000-04:00

PRRag.com has a GREAT post concerning the Fifth Congressional District race between the incumbent, Nancy Johnson (R), and state senator Chris Murphy (D). This race looks to be very interesting and has received far too little coverage. You can access the post by clicking on the link above.

Wall Street Journal Applauds Lieberman's Decision

2006-07-05T18:36:00.000-04:00

Today's edition of the Wall Street Journal contains a nice contrast to both the opinion piece contained in yesterday's Journal-Inquirer (thanks to the Connecticut Local Politics Blog) as well as Sen. Hillary Clinton's recent statement that she will not "stand by her man." The op-ed begins:

"Joe Lieberman's announcement Monday that he'll run as an independent if he loses the Democratic nomination is a remarkable commentary on the mind of the Democratic Party these days. A three-term Senator who was on his party's national ticket in 2000 is in danger of being drummed out of respectable Democratic company.

Mr. Lieberman may still win his August 8 Connecticut primary against millionaire and antiwar Democrat Ned Lamont. But the Senator feels unsure enough that he has taken the political risk of saying he will begin to collect the 7,500 signatures he'd need to file as an independent if he loses. A political neophyte, Mr. Lamont has nonetheless been adopted by antiwar Democrats, who see the contest as a way to purge national security hawks from party ranks and are pouring money into the contest."

The piece concludes:

"Connecticut's Senate race may turn out to be the most important election of the year. If Democrats drive Mr. Lieberman from their ranks, they will be sending Americans a message that George Soros and MoveOn.org dominate their party. This is all the more reason to applaud Mr. Lieberman for declaring that he won't easily be pushed from the Senate, whatever party banner he has to wave."

Justice Sullivan Quashes Subpoena, Impeachment Hearings Possible

2006-06-27T06:37:00.000-04:00

The Hartford Courant has a "must read" article on the current situation plaguing our high court. As I predicted in my April 26 post (see below), a Connecticut judge cannot be subpoenaed to testify before a legislative committee short of an impeachment proceeding. Having lost that battle, it appears highly likely that the senate judiciary committee, lead by Sen. Andrew McDonald (D-Stamford) and Rep. Michael Lawlor (D-East Haven) will proceed with impeachment hearings. Should the senate judiciary committee proceed with such hearings, its confirmation of controversial sitting judges in the past should definitely come under scrutiny. In the next few days I will try and post some articles concerning the extremely low standard for confirmation set to date by the judiciary committee. Stay tuned....

Chief Justice Sullivan Served with Subpoena

2006-06-22T20:07:00.000-04:00

The Hartford Courant is reporting that former Chief Justice Sullivan was today subpoenaed to testify before the senate judiciary committee. Stay tuned for more details on this, as it's clearly a developing story.....

Kevin Rennie: "State's Top Prosecutor Stepped on Wrong Toes"

2006-06-11T13:37:00.000-04:00

Today's Hartford Courant has a very interesting piece written by Kevin Rennie on the upcoming battle to be Connecticut's Chief State's Attorney. I think the logical point to be learned from the piece is that there's an inherent problem in selecting your chief law enforcement officer by committee, versus statewide election. To those who feel selections of this sort remove politics from the equation, the piece makes it clear that this is not so! An interesting read, for sure.

Battle for Top Prosecutor Post

2006-06-10T13:35:00.000-04:00

Today the Hartford Courant has a very interesting article on the applicants for the post of Chief State's Attorney. One of the more interesting comments comes from applicant John Connelly, currently Waterbury state's attorney, who takes a shot at current chief state's attorney Chris Morano. It's also interesting to note that the two state's attorneys applying for the job (the other is New London State's Attorney Kevin Kane) have strong records on effectuating the death penalty, although that is not mentioned in the article.

NY Times: "Liberal Wrath in Connecticut"

2006-05-18T22:34:00.000-04:00

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

2006-05-18T18:52:00.000-04:00

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

2006-05-05T22:07:00.000-04:00

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....

Glastonbury Man: Justice Borden's Efforts "Sour Grapes" and "Political Maneuvering"

2006-04-26T21:28:00.000-04:00

Although the press has thus far ignored the questionable decision of Justice Borden (see my post below) the lead letter in today's Hartford Courant reads:

"In response to the April 25 news article 'Borden Letter Indicates Contentious Atmosphere On Court':

It is obvious that Connecticut Supreme Court Acting Chief Justice David Borden has attempted a last-ditch effort to derail Justice Peter Zarella's nomination for chief justice. I find this to be nothing more than sour grapes and political maneuvering by Borden and legislative leaders.

Isn't it true that Borden stands to benefit from Zarella's appointment being stopped?

Borden should focus on being a judge, not a politician. He is guilty of what he is making accusations about. The holding of the decision on a freedom of information case had no bearing on either that case or the confirmation process. Therefore, it is a moot point.

It appears that Democratic Party leaders have drummed up the media circus with the purpose of blocking the nomination. On all accounts, former Chief Justice William Sullivan has a long history of impeccable character and ethical standing. It is disgraceful that an ambitious judge (Borden) and the state Senate leadership would attack him for personal and political gain.

Jeffrey Wihbey
Glastonbury"

In case your wondering, I am NOT Mr. Wihbey.

State Senate to "Call" Supreme Court Justices to Testify

2006-04-26T21:19:00.000-04:00

The Associated Press is reporting:

"State lawmakers said Wednesday that they expect to call the six current Connecticut Supreme Court justices and the retired chief justice to testify at an investigative hearing into why the court's leader delayed the release of a decision to help his potential successor's confirmation.

'I would think it would be very likely if most, if not all, the justices would be asked to meet with the committee,' said Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the legislature's Judiciary Committee.

Lawmakers have not yet set a date for the public hearing, but said it will likely take place after the legislature adjourns May 3."

In a further errosion of both the separation of powers and the apolitical face of the judiciary, acting Chief Justice David Borden "informed legislators that he has agreed - at their request - to preserve all documents and e-mails the Judicial Branch controls relating to Sullivan's April 15 retirement and Rell's nomination of Zarella." Further, "Borden said he also directed court officials to preserve any documents relating to the court ruling that Sullivan delayed....Borden, in a letter to lawmakers, said he has no authority to direct individual justices to comply with the legislature's request to preserve documents. However, he said he 'respectfully requested' they consent. 'I have no reason to believe that any of them will not do so,' he said."

Because of the separation of powers, I don't think that the legislature has the right to force any Supreme Court justices to testify. It therefore appears that any justices who appear will do so of their own volition. In other words, expect the battle lines to be drawn even sharper and the reputation of the court to drop even farther.

Crisis at the High Court

2006-04-25T23:11:00.000-04:00

In an article titled "High Court Nomination Troubled," the Hartford Courant reveals a truly sad episode in the history of our High Court. The article begins:

"Former Chief Justice William J. Sullivan secretly postponed release of a controversial ruling on access to court documents to enhance Justice Peter Zarella's prospects of being confirmed as chief justice, precipitating an unprecedented crisis of confidence in the state's highest court.

The 'bombshell' revelation was made to the governor and legislative leaders Monday morning in a three-page letter written by Senior Associate Justice David M. Borden, who is acting chief justice.

"The intent and effect of Chief Justice Sullivan's conduct was to deprive the legislature of the timely knowledge of Justice Zarella's vote in that case," Borden wrote of the court's sharply divided ruling last week foreclosing access to court documents under the Freedom of Information Act."

The Courant and other publications have thus far concentrated on the disturbing and improper decision of former Chief Justice Sullivan to withhold a judicial opinion with the hopes of positively affecting Justice Zarella's nomination. Criticism of the former Chief Justice of the state is appropriate and fair and his actions have the possibility of sacking Justice Zarella's nomination. Because I have no doubt that this aspect of the story will be sufficiently combed over by the media I wish to concentrate on an equally disturbing aspect of the story.

Equally disturbing is Justice David Borden's decision to inform the senate judiciary committee of the inner workings of the court, no matter how offensive, via his letter. The Courant has posted Justice Borden's letter and a thorough reading of it yields absolutely no reason -- other than political -- for the acting chief justice to advise the senate judiciary committee of the events that transpired. Justice Borden explains in his letter his authority to contact the judiciary committee as follows: "I believe it is my duty, acting as the head of the Judicial Branch pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 51-3, to bring these facts to your attention." However, nothing in Section 51-3 (which merely indicates that Borden is properly the acting chief justice) outlines such a "duty" to become involved in a political process. Short of any legislative empowerment, Borden's view, taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that his powers as chief justice are plenary. Given the history of the separation of powers, this simply cannot be. (A few examples demonstrate the ridiculousness of Justice Borden's argument. For example, since this "power" is not identified in the General Statutes, why would only the chief justice have it? Why not junior justices, too? If the sitting chief justice were the violator would the next justice in line have the power?) Moreover, to the extent that Justice Borden believed Chief Justice Sullivan's actions were improper because they affected a political process, his actions had the same affect and were therefore equally improper. After all, what would happen if Justice Zarella, during his confirmation were to misstate his position on a prior case? Would Justice Borden (or any other justice) be under a "duty" to report this misstatement? After all, such a misstatement would be just as likely as this incident to affect the senate judiciary committee. Such a duty simply does not exist especially when it would threaten to undermine the whole integrity of the court.

It's also relevant to note that Justice Borden -- who many regard as the intellectual leader of the court -- was not powerless to act in response to Chief Justice Sullivan's actions. He could have brought the matter to the attention of the Judicial Review Council. Justice Borden has been on the court since 1990 and he was therefore quite familiar with the disciplinary punishment handed out by that body to fellow Justice Fleming Norcott in 1994 for serious although dissimilar indiscretions. That would have been the proper forum to air his concerns.

The issue is also compounded somewhat by the fact that Justice Borden was known to have been desirous of the chief justice seat prior to the nomination of Judge Sullivan. This history between the justices will no doubt be brought to light and will also make this rift even uglier.

One final observation, albeit one akin to a possible conspiracy theory. On March 15 the senate reappointed Justice Borden to another eight year term. (Because he will be forced under state law to retire from the Supreme Court at age seventy he will not serve out his full term.) Chief Justice Sullivan announced his retirement two days later. Could it be that CJ Sullivan postponed his announcement until after Justice Borden's reappointment in the hopes that this would diminish the chance that Justice Borden would be the nominee? Perhaps that is a stretch, but one thing is certain: it would not be the first time that a judge (state or federal) delayed his retirement for succession reasons.

I'll blog more on this later as the story develops, especially since I believe the entire judicial selection process in Connecticut is deeply flawed. For now this much is clear: while there are no winners in all of this, the loss is clear: the integrity and reputation of our high court.

Rell Outflanks Dems on Teachers' Pensions

2006-04-19T23:31:00.000-04:00

The Hartord Courant is reporting:

"Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell announced Wednesday that she is willing to fully fund the state teachers' retirement account - welcome news to legislative Democrats who have made the pension plan one of their top priorities this session."

Although the Democrats in the state House and Senate are trying to spin Rell's position as joining theirs, the simple fact is that the Democrats have been in charge of both houses while the retirement account has been grossly underfunded.

The issue of underfunded pensions has always amazed me. After all, the teachers' union has the Democrats in its back pocket as typified by the Democrats position on school choice, No Child Left Behind, etc. Why then didn't the union use its influence over Democrats to succeed on this crucial issue? I suppose that the reason for that failing is the same as the reason that Democrat strongholds like West Hartford annually get shortchanged under the state educational funding formula.

In any event, it now appears as if Rell -- whose approval rating is already through the roof -- has yet again outflanked the Democrats.

New Haven Independent Puff Piece on Ned Lamont

2006-04-18T20:30:00.000-04:00

In the latest example of the local media's obsession with Ned Lamont, yesterday the New Haven Independent ran a puff piece about a recent talk given by Mr. Lamont at Southern Connecticut State University. The event was attended by a whopping 30 (!) people, two of whom were members of the press! The piece, which could have easily been written by the Lamont campaign, contains the following ridiculous assertions:

"In a matter of weeks, Lamont, a political newbie who made his fortune starting a Greenwich-based cable company, has moved from a longshot protest candidate furious at Lieberman's embrace of the Iraq war to the Story of the Year so far in Connecticut politics."

....

"Thrown off balance, Lieberman has publicly admitted he may bolt the Democratic Party and run as an independent in November if Lamont beats him in the Aug. 8 primary."

Story of the Year? I suppose that's true, but only because the media in Connecticut has found its new darling. As for Lieberman being "thrown off balance," how can that be true when Lamont has received absolutely no backing from the vast Democrat politicians in the state? Mark my words. Once Lamont's campaign burns out the media will embrace another candidate before his body is cold. (Incidentally, I predict that candidate will be Chris Murphy (D) who is hoping to unseat Rep. Nancy Johnson in the Fifth Congressional District.)

Also, I thought that Lamont was born into wealth? Did he really "make his fortune" via his company or was he born into it?

Tax Returns?

2006-04-18T20:16:00.000-04:00

Tax Day 2006 -- a day lamented by many of us -- has come and gone. In our neighboring state of New York, the gubernatorial candidates and Governor Pataki have made public their tax returns. (SHOCKER: they are all wealthy.) This begs the question, will our gubernatorial candidates make their returns public? To date, it appears that only John DeStefano has indicated a desire to share such information. On January 23 of this year he issued a press release stating that he had made public his tax returns from 2002, 2003 and 2004. No word yet on 2005 or 2006.

I'm not sure any of this matters a great deal, especially since Gov. Rell is the most popular governor in America, but it is odd that such a common practice is not being done here in Connecticut.

DeStefano "Reminds" New Haven Police Department Their Job is to "Protect Illegal Immigrants"

2006-04-17T21:57:00.000-04:00

I would be remiss if I did not post one potentially alarming comment made during the recent debate regarding immigration reform. According to the Hartford Courant, at a debate in Hartford on April 11, New Haven Mayor and Gubernatorial Candidate John DeStefano, Jr. (D) made the following remark concerning illegal immigrants:

"DeStefano said he has issued an order to his police department, reminding officers their job is to protect illegal immigrants, not prosecute them for their status."

Republican Candidates for U.S. Senate Nomination

2006-04-17T21:12:00.000-04:00

The Hartford Courant is reporting: "Alan Schlesinger, a former six-term state representative and mayor of Derby, announced Monday he will seek the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate." The Hartford Courant earlier reported that Schlesinger is a "tax attorney who graduated from the University of Connecticut School of Law and the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Finance." According to the Journal Inquirer, Schlesinger is a self-described "moderate conservative."

Let's take a look at the potential nominees:
Schlesinger, 48, "must compete with Paul Streitz, a Darien resident who also is seeking the Republican nomination." Streitz, a 62 year old Vietnam veteran, is the co-founder of Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control and author of the book "Oxford, Son of Queen Elizabeth I." His platform includes setting a timetable for bringing our troops back from Iraq, tougher illegal immigration controls, and a repeal of NAFTA and other trade bills. (Interestingly enough, Streitz position on Iraq is seemingly more akin to the Democrats than that of Senator Lieberman.) Streitz sought to unseat Sen. Dodd in 2004, but gained only 26 delegates to eventual Republican nominee Jack Orchulli's 713.

Orchulli, who lost by a landslide (34 percentage points) to Sen. Dodd in 2004, said as recently as Friday that he is still considering another run for the Senate.

At least one CT Republican, Representative Chris Shays, has confirmed that the party is considering cross-endorsing Senator Lieberman.

The Republican party will endorse a candidate on May 20.

For more information on Schlesinger and Streitz please see this March 23 article from the Journal Inquirer:
http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16358808&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6

For Mr. Streitz's campaing website, please see: http://www.streitzforsenate.com/

WELCOME!

2006-04-13T23:10:00.000-04:00

Welcome to my Blog!

The purpose of this blog is to offer you, the reader, articles and commentary concerning the great state of Connecticut that I find interesting. While I fully expect to post stories from other jurisdictions it is my hope that the lion's share of stories posted will concern the Land of Steady Habits.

You are probably wondering a bit about me. I am a conservative lawyer born, raised, and educated in Connecticut. For the time being, all other details of my life will not be revealed.

I hope that you enjoy reading stories that interest me. Please bear with me as I feel my way through this whole blogging thing. Also, please contact me with any interesting stories or suggestions. Input from others will only improve this site.

Happy reading.