Skip to main content

The Palace Coup

In a stunning editorial, The Waterbury Republican American addresses itself to the palace coup at Connecticut’s Supreme Court:

"The legislature's campaign against former state Supreme Court Chief Justice William 'Tocco' Sullivan is looking more and more like a witch hunt. He has admitted -- to his colleagues, to reporters, to the state Judicial Review Council -- that he withheld the release of a ruling to help Justice Peter Zarella's chances of succeeding him. Justice Sullivan set no precedent; previous chief justices have held up decisions for political reasons. He didn't try to cover up what he did; he even told a colleague, 'I had no evil intent. I would have done it for any one of you.'

"Unresolved is whether he acted within the bounds of judicial discretion. If he did, the complaints against him would be outside the council's jurisdiction and certainly beyond the reach of lawmakers trying to compel him to make the perp walk into an investigative hearing by the Judiciary Committee.

"On constitutional grounds, a Superior Court judge quashed the committee's effort to subpoena him to avoid granting lawmakers extra-constitutional powers that would put the judiciary 'at serious risk of losing its identity as an independent branch of government.' Yet the committee cochairmen and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal continue beating the bushes for a judge who will compel Justice Sullivan to tell the committee what he already has told his colleagues, the council and the public.

"To what end? Well, it's an election year and politicians are eager to show voters they are tough on corruption, even where it doesn't exist. The irony is those who would sit in judgment of Justice Sullivan routinely pass legislation as favors to their colleagues, special interests and campaign contributors. Their sins dwarf those of which Justice Sullivan is accused.

"Whether Justice Sullivan acted unethically is for the judicial review council to decide, and that process will play out in due time. A legislative hearing would serve no purpose, except to let pious politicians spew lofty rhetoric at election time and kick a good man while he's down."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p