Skip to main content

Some Question McDonald's Fitness To Serve On Connecticut Supreme Court


Shortly after Governor Dannel Malloy nominated his chief counsel Andrew McDonald to Connecticut’s Supreme Court, the Day of New London noted that it was “a testament of how far Connecticut has come that the least controversial fact about Andrew J. McDonald, nominated by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy on Thursday to join the state Supreme Court, is that he is openly gay.”

When Mr. Malloy announced awhile back that his administration was the gayest in Connecticut history, no one bated an eyelash. Mr. McDonald was married to Charles Gray in 2009 by then Mayor of Stamford Malloy; under Secretary for Criminal Justice Policy and Planning Michael Lawlor, the author of the problem ridden Earned Risk Reduction Credits program, is also openly gay.

A few decades ago, gays in Connecticut occupied on the ladder of social acceptance a rung a little bit below that of lepers and Republicans. Mere association with gays over the years utterly destroyed the prejudice against them. Familiarity does not always breed contempt; sometimes it breeds a loving understanding.

Connecticut abolished the last of its progressively ameliorated penalties for sodomy in 1969. In 2004, a Superior Court, rejecting a claim that the constitution did not permit merely an “equivalent nomenclature for such protection and process,” found Connecticut’s Civil Union marriage law was not inconsistent with a Connecticut constitutional provision requiring equal protection and due process of law. Then Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, now a U.S. Senator, declined to argue the case when it was appealed to Connecticut’s Supreme Court but sent a functionary to do so. It was supposed by some commentators at the time that Mr. Blumenthal did not wish to step into a mare’s nest that might have impacted his future plans to run for national office. In 2008, the Supreme Court issued a ruling guaranteeing same sex marriage rights and striking down the legislature’s civil union provisions as unconstitutional. Bowing to the high court’s ruling, the General Assembly codified same sex marriage in 2009.

Following Mr. Malloy’s press release announcing his nomination of Mr. McDonald to Connecticut’s already progressive and politically attuned high court, CTMirror noted:

“As a justice, McDonald would bring to the state's highest court the perspective of a politician who struggled to draft and pass legislation on the death penalty, gay marriage, transgender rights, gun control and drug penalties.


"’The Judiciary Committee is the legislative cauldron for all of that,’ McDonald said in 2009, when the panel drew the ire of Catholic clergy by considering a bill that could have forcibly reorganized the finances of Catholic parishes.”
 
Mr. McDonald’s judgment – as well as his lack of qualifications for the high court – has been called into question by others. The Day reasonably doubts Mr. McDonald has the requisite experience to serve on the court, a point that was considered of crucial importance when Susan Bysiewicz ran on the Democratic ticket for Attorney General: “This is arguably more a political appointment than a judicial one. Mr. McDonald, 46, has no experience on the bench. His experience is as a former state senator and political appointee.”

Mr. McDonald is a bit of a cauldron himself. Not only would the bill written by the two co-chairs of the General Assembly’s Judiciary Committee,  Mr. Lawlor and Mr. McDonald, have “forcibly reorganized the finances of Catholic parishes,” it would have changed the apostolic nature of the Catholic Church in Connecticut and as such indicates a remarkable insensitivity to the history of church-state relations in the United States.

In the colonial period, the General Court, the Congregational governing body for the state, was a theocratic instrument that suppressed religious dissent and blocked the gateway of religious liberty for other denominations. Had the bill proposed by Mr. Lawlor and Mr. McDonald come before the Connecticut Supreme court on review, one might hope that a majority of the justices would have regarded SB 1098 as an instrument of religious suppression that violated the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment,  the "Supremacy clause," and the Fourteenth Amendment barring discriminatory legislation. The bill written by Mr. Lawlor and Mr. McDonald was narrowly contrived to affect only the Catholic Church in Connecticut. The state’s high court, some fear, may be less likely to render dispassionate justice should Connecticut’s General Assembly, no longer a theocratic body committed to a Protestant form of church governance, affirm the governor’s nomination.

Comments

Stephen Mendelsohn said…
You missed an additional issue that gets to the heart of Andrew McDonald's conflict of interest in serving on the Connecticut Supreme Court. Back in June, during oral arguments in Ludlum et al. v. Malloy regarding Governor Malloy's controversial executive orders forcibly unionizing personal care attendants and daycare providers, McDonald was quoted by CT News Junkie as saying, "This was the first time in 20 years of practicing law I’ve watched the radical Right in the courtroom. It was a surreal and bizarre experience." http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/judge_questions_whether_legislation_makes_executive_orders_moot/
Cathy Ludlum's case against Public Act 12-33, which supersedes the executive orders, may well wind up before the Connecticut Supreme Court. McDonald has shown by his extreme statements treating an issue of the rights of people with disabilities (specifically, employers with disabilities) as "radical Right" to be biased and unable to fairly judge this case. Will McDonald pledge to recuse himself from this case? And what about other cases where McDonald has acted on behalf of the Malloy administration and which may come before the court?
Don Pesci said…
Glad you noticed.

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