Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell and a Democratic leader of the legislature's Judiciary Committee swapped charges of partisan politics in connection with the nomination of Justice Peter T. Zarella to become chief justice of the state Supreme Court.Rell has always been firm about keeping the powers and privileges of the Executive away from legislative encroachment. In fact, that was one of the main reasons for her veto of the contract bill, and, in fact, for most of her vetoes so far. On the other hand, leaders in the legislature think she is trying to ram Zarella through without giving them a chance to properly consider the matter.
Rell sent committee leaders a letter accusing them of showing "incredible disrespect" by not yet holding a public hearing on the nomination, which was submitted March 24. The panel canceled a hearing scheduled for Tuesday.
But Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, fired back that Rell bears responsibility for the delay by not keeping lawmakers apprised of her plans to nominate Zarella. McDonald also said the panel still is waiting for crucial background information on Zarella, and warned that lawmakers "will not be rushed" into acting without taking due diligence. (Phaneuf)
As for whether or not Zarella should be the next chief justice... Who knows?
Source
Phaneuf, Keith. "Chief justice nomination erupts into partisan feud." Journal-Inquirer 19 April, 2006.
14 comments:
Wow. Professionalism galore!
Sounds like the DeStefano people come out looking worse... which seems to be par for the course for that campaign. They can't take two steps without blowing up. The Malloy campaign is good at picking up people who either DeStefano or his staff have alienated, it seems.
CATFIGHT!!!!
I though Henry was brought in to stop this pettiness and put an adult face on this campaign!
Dum And Dummer seems to be the Title of this years Democratic Race for the Nomination for te position of Governor with each campaign trying to out stupid the other.
Next thing ya know they'll both endorse Bush's favorite Democrat!
A big fear that I have in the "Zarella War" is that the lines between the branches of government will become blurred. I can understand that since judges are appointed that there is always some political hand in the process and then we expect that the judicial branch would remain independant of the legislative and executive for the most part.
I found Justice Zarella to be a hardworking and personable judge who is well known for the many hours that he puts in. I hope that the legislature does not make Zarella a pawn in a game that is being played with the governor. I have read and heard from many that it is not 'about Zarella', but as of April 15th our judiciary does not have a Chief Justice, the leader of an important branch of government. If there are concerns about Justice Zarella, air them out now and have a vote, otherwise the judicial branch is simply the subject of political football.
(In the interest of full disclosure I did a clerkship in the judicial year 1999-2000 with now-Justices Zarella and Vertfeille and Judge Mihalakos at the Appellate Court.)
I should correct one misconception that I had, at this time there is an ACTING Chief Justice, Justice Borden.
red october,
What do mean by "about letting the Chief Justice know the will of the people as he goes in to his new position."
BRubenstein,
I can certainly appreciate "due diligence", but it appears that there may be more in play.
red october, I have seen a big change in the civil courts over the last several years. Dockets move more quickly, which is certainly a benefit to the people as well as the judges and attorneys. I cannot comment on the criminal courts, since I don't usually practice in that area.
Hey Paul,
It appears their may be more in play?
I hope so.I'd rather have a governor Elected by the people of this state Nominate the cheif Justice than one who watched with her hands over her eyes the corruption that made the rest of the country call Our state Corrupticut.
This can wait util the next session.
Keith,
I am a big proponent of saying what you mean and I see from your posts that you don't seem to have a problem shooting from the hip. If there are real reasons Zarella is being held up, I would hope that those who are holding it up would be straight about why.
I have met Gov. Rell and Senator McDonald only once and I have never met Rep. Lawlor. I don't want to guess as to why this matter is held up, I can only compare it to past practice.
Imagine if politicians just said what they meant?
brubenstein,
You are correct on many regards. I am Paul Vance from Waterbury, I am a Democrat on the Board of Aldermen and I was a supporter of Curry's opponent. That opponent was George Jepsen. I am a democrat, I support democrats.
By 'more in play', I am simply saying that we are not being told the whole story. If the governor tried to sneak this by, say so. If it is being held up for other reasons, what are they? I am biased (as I said before), I like Justice Zarella and I am impressed with his abilities.
BRubenstein,
What is that anyway? Paul Vance is from Waterbury so he HAD to support Rowland?
I'm not biased,
I'm partisan and dam proud of it and the sooner Dems in Hartford lose the words bipartisan and consensus from their vocabulary the better off this state is going to be.If Jodi Rell wins in 06 it's because our Dem legislature and it's leadership have proven themselves totaly inept at politics but batting 1.000 at return on investment for their contributors.
we're getting the lawlor interview re: zarella up on our site as a podcast right now. you might find it interesting.
Colin,
The women of the world had to know whether Clinton wore boxers or Breifs and Your eqivilent questions after Sundays proformance is,
Booze or Ambien?
The world awaits your answer.
The real question here is: Why is Jodi Rell trying to steam roll the nomination of a Chief Justice? What is her reasoning for acting so fast?
I'm still baffled by her announcing Sullivan's resignation and Zarella's nomination in the same press release. Very unorthodox. Either she doesn't care about our government's conventional protocol, or she is naive and doesn't know better.
What is really going on as to why she needs him nominated immediately with no proper hearings? There must be a reason. This seat is the most important judicial nomination that our legislators decide upon. Shouldn't they have a reasonable amount of time to conduct these appropriate and customary investigations?
Post a Comment