Skip to main content

Digging The Dirt: Committee Hearings, Politics By Other Means

It’s a mouthful from “Red Five,” a commentator on Connecticut Local Politics, but well worth heeding:

“So far the committee hearings themselves have appeared bipartisan.

“But someone is feeding a steady stream of “dirt” on Downey to the panel, and the media, and it makes you wonder who that might be … and why they’re doing it.

“Anyone who actually reads the Downey transcript on (Strom) Thurmond can see he (1) condemned Thurmond’s bigoted past and (2) spoke as someone with a personal relationship to the senator, not as a fan of his politics.

“Lawlor and McDonald - and please note here that Chris Healy was as wrong about this as he could have been - said as much themselves.

“Yet the damage was done.

“Then there’s the “questions” about his comments concerning immigration status. Even the lawyer for the party in question calls the comments innocuous - an intellectual exercise.

“Yet more damage was done.

“Come today and the committee is forced to delay action due to “surprise” new issues …

“Which brings us to snide posts on CLP about “Nominiations” and even more invective on MLN.

“Are we to believe that this “surprise” evidence - which deals with a case from 2002 - was not available before 4 p.m.? Or, to suggest another TV metaphor, is this a little too Perry Mason-esque?

“It’s classic political theater. And utterly despicable.”


There was an unmistakable political message attached to the hearing presided over by conservative judicial dragon slayers ,Rep. Michael Lawlor and Sen. Andrew McDonald, co-chairs of the Judiciary Committee, who persuaded Judge Downey to withdraw as a gubernatorial choice for the appellate court.

And the message is: Progressives on the Judiciary Committee never sleep. The gateway to judicial appointments to the bench is guarded by Lawlor and McDonald who have, between them, more eyes than may be found in a peacocks’ fan.

The little wag of the tail that gave Downey away was a remark he made, way back in 2002, to a defense attorney concerning a client who, Downey supposed, may not have been a legal immigrant. Pressed by a stern looking Lawlor and McDonald, Downey allowed that he was only engaging in intellectual fisticuffs with the attorney when he said non citizens in the country illegally might not have a right to access to the courts. But then someone – certainly not a friend of the judge -- brought to the attention of Downey’s inquisitors that, way back in the Mesozoic Period, the judge had sported the same belligerent attitude towards illegal aliens who might use the judicial system to gain an advantage over real citizens.

Well now, the two co-chairs of the judiciary committee are used to spiking conservatives. Earlier in the year, they easily got rid of Judge Peter Zarella -- perhaps the most brilliant jurist on Connecticut’s Supreme Court, a Republican, certainly not a progressive – whom Governor Jodi Rell nominated to be Chief Justice. Downey was an after-dinner drink for Lawlor and McDonald. When the two progressive co-chairs handed Downey his hat, the judge first apologized profusely for exercising his First Amendment rights from the bench, and then he did a little groveling before the two worthies, no doubt hoping his sins would be forgiven him by the time his re-appointment came up.

The ever obliging and truckling Hartford Courant closed the lid on Downey’s coffin. Said the magisterial Courant in one of its pro forma editorials, Downey “tellingly” said that his views on the issue under question had evolved over the years; thus Downey had “tacitly” acknowledged that his “political philosophy” had got in the way of his judgment – unlike his interrogators, grand inquisitors Lawlor and McDonald, who apparently have no political philosophy worth mentioning.

Whoever is digging the dirt on non-progressive judicial nominees certainly went back a long way to gather a few shovels full to bury Gov. Jodi Rell’s judicial appointments, and in Zarella’s case there was no dirt at all. But the innocence of the victims has never stood in the way of determined ideologues.

“Despicable!” said Red Five.

Hear, hear…

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