Connecticut Commentary: Red Notes from a Blue State

Here’s a question no one seems willing to discuss: How often do legislative committees – the Ethics Committee, no less – start “investigations” on groups that are exercising their constitutional rights on the Capitol lawn? Once, that I can think of -- here: The state’s Ethics Committee is now “investigating” the Catholic Church with a view to determining whether the Diocese of Bridgeport, which paid for some buses to transport people to a rally on the Capitol lawn, is in violation of lobbying ordinances. The Catholic Church is suing the state to secure its constitutional rights. There is some danger here that watchful citizens may lose sight of the trees because they are too close to the forest. The Catholic Church has been under successful attack for some time by its natural enemies in the legislature, but one recent sally by the church’s opponents in the legislature has been beaten back by the church. Some people are keeping score, obviously. The Judiciary Committee, hea...

Lets take this one step by step. In a recent editorial, the Hartford Courant inveighs against Connecticut’s death penalty law. “A legislative committee,” the paper advises, “has taken a brave step toward abolishing Connecticut's death penalty, a law that is all but unworkable, not to mention expensive, unfair and risky." The bill abolishing the death penalty was brought forward by the same folk who recently sought unsuccessfully to deprive Catholic bishops of their responsibility, in an apostolic structure, of determining the finances of their organization. The Catholic Church also opposes the death penalty, for legitimate religious reasons. Now, why does the paper think that bringing forth such a bill is “brave?” It may be right, according to the revised religious precepts of the Catholic Church, but why is it brave? Is the opposition to the death penalty in Connecticut so fierce and unrelenting that those who have petitioned for its abolition are in some sense threatened?...

The state Judiciary Committee, headed by co-chairs Andrew McDonald and Michael Lawlor, seems to be unwilling or unable to accommodate religious proscriptions. The panel recently rejected an amendment to a technical bill drafted to reshape laws allowing court-ordered same sex marriages. The amendment to the enabling legislation, offered by Democratic Rep. Bruce Morris, would have insured that religious organizations would not be forced by law to participate in activities prohibited by some churches. While the enabling legislation passed the committee on a 30-10 vote, the amendment that, according to one news account , would have “specified that organizations affiliated with religious groups wouldn’t be compelled to take actions that contradicted their religious convictions” was defeated by the Judiciary Committee. A few weeks ago, the panel put forth a bill that would have reformed the apostolic nature of the Catholic Church. The two co-chairmen of the Judiciary Committee, both of whom ...

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 ...

Justice Borden took an axe And gave Zarella forty whacks Here’s the short version of what happened. Governor Jodi Rell wanted to appoint State Supreme Court Justice Peter Zarella as Chief Justice. The sitting Chief Justice, William Sullivan, soon to retire, thought to grease the skids for Zarella, a protégé whom he appeared to like more than, say, Justice David Borden – by withholding from publication in a law journal a decision that had produced much controversy in the media. The court, Zarella voting with the majority, had declared that a decision made by the Freedom of Information Council ordering the release of certain information to the media could not trump a previous decision made by a superior court judge that the information need not be made public. The decision turned on the nature of the information that was to be released. The court was divided on the issue, Borden voting with minority dissenters. The high court’s decision did not please the media, friends of the Freedom of...