The Judiciary Committee held a hearing and meeting on interim nominations by the Governor to the State Appellate Court and the Workers' Compensation Commission.
An interim appointment is a temporary appointment made between regular sessions of the General Assembly. All three of today's nominees are being appointed only until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the legislature - which is March 12, 2008. The Governor can do this with the approval of the legislature's Judiciary Committee in order to allow for the jobs to be filled until the full legislature has time to review the nominations.
I decided to vote for all three interim appointments. The votes are presently being "held open", meaning that Committee members will be allowed to cast their votes on the motion to confirm the nominees until 5pm today. That is when it will have been decided. But, at the formal meeting, all of the legislators present supported all three nominees.
It looks like Attorney Jodi Murray Gregg of Stamford is about to be confirmed as a Workers' Compensation Commissioner, and Judge Robert E. Beach, Jr. of Glastonbury and Judge Richard A. Robinson of Stratford are about to be confirmed for the State Appellate Court.
Since the Appellate Court makes decisions similar to, though not as final as, the State Supreme Court, there was a couple of very important matters I asked both nominees about.
First, I asked them about the individual rights we have under that State Constitution. Of course, individuals have rights under the U.S. Constitution. But we also have rights under the Connecticut Constitution. It is understood that our rights in Connecticut are the whichever of the two constitutions gives us the strongest individual rights. So, if the federal Constitution has stronger individual rights, the State courts follow the U.S. Constitutional rights. If the State Constitution has stronger individual rights, the State courts follow the State Constitutional rights.
My question was, supposing that the State and U.S. constitutions have provide for the same or similar rights, but the federal courts rule that those constitutional rights provide less protection for individuals than the similar rights have been applied here in Connecticut under our State Constitution. Should the State Appellate Court go along with the Connecticut Constitutional rights or the federal courts' decisions?
This is a question I consider very important in light of a lot of the actions of the federal executive branch in recent years and some of the laws that were passed by Congress, especially before the 2006 election, that undermine individual rights and freedoms, combined with concerns that the new federal Supreme Court seems less inclined than past ones to take a stand for a lot of individual rights. I want to know that government officials of Connecticut will have to respect people's rights under our State Constitution.
The second question I asked both nominees might sound esoteric, but it is actually very important to a number of important issues that come before the State's courts. Both the State and federal constitutions provide that everyone is entitled to the equal protection of the laws. But, when we are asking whether someone actually has the equal protection of the laws, we can look at things in two different ways.
On the one hand, we can look at how the law is written and judge whether the law gives people equal treatment on paper. Do the words, themselves, give equal weight to the rights of everyone?
On the other hand we can look at the practical effect of the law. When we look at the real world results of government agencies or others following the law, do the outcomes that occur result in equal protections for everyone?
While Courts clearly must look at both of these, my question to the nominees was which of these two ways of looking at things should have greater weight?
Since there is not a lot going on at the Capitol right now, you will probably have the opportunity to watch the hearing on CTN. What do you think of the two judge's answers to my questions?
An interim appointment is a temporary appointment made between regular sessions of the General Assembly. All three of today's nominees are being appointed only until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the legislature - which is March 12, 2008. The Governor can do this with the approval of the legislature's Judiciary Committee in order to allow for the jobs to be filled until the full legislature has time to review the nominations.
I decided to vote for all three interim appointments. The votes are presently being "held open", meaning that Committee members will be allowed to cast their votes on the motion to confirm the nominees until 5pm today. That is when it will have been decided. But, at the formal meeting, all of the legislators present supported all three nominees.
It looks like Attorney Jodi Murray Gregg of Stamford is about to be confirmed as a Workers' Compensation Commissioner, and Judge Robert E. Beach, Jr. of Glastonbury and Judge Richard A. Robinson of Stratford are about to be confirmed for the State Appellate Court.
Since the Appellate Court makes decisions similar to, though not as final as, the State Supreme Court, there was a couple of very important matters I asked both nominees about.
First, I asked them about the individual rights we have under that State Constitution. Of course, individuals have rights under the U.S. Constitution. But we also have rights under the Connecticut Constitution. It is understood that our rights in Connecticut are the whichever of the two constitutions gives us the strongest individual rights. So, if the federal Constitution has stronger individual rights, the State courts follow the U.S. Constitutional rights. If the State Constitution has stronger individual rights, the State courts follow the State Constitutional rights.
My question was, supposing that the State and U.S. constitutions have provide for the same or similar rights, but the federal courts rule that those constitutional rights provide less protection for individuals than the similar rights have been applied here in Connecticut under our State Constitution. Should the State Appellate Court go along with the Connecticut Constitutional rights or the federal courts' decisions?
This is a question I consider very important in light of a lot of the actions of the federal executive branch in recent years and some of the laws that were passed by Congress, especially before the 2006 election, that undermine individual rights and freedoms, combined with concerns that the new federal Supreme Court seems less inclined than past ones to take a stand for a lot of individual rights. I want to know that government officials of Connecticut will have to respect people's rights under our State Constitution.
The second question I asked both nominees might sound esoteric, but it is actually very important to a number of important issues that come before the State's courts. Both the State and federal constitutions provide that everyone is entitled to the equal protection of the laws. But, when we are asking whether someone actually has the equal protection of the laws, we can look at things in two different ways.
On the one hand, we can look at how the law is written and judge whether the law gives people equal treatment on paper. Do the words, themselves, give equal weight to the rights of everyone?
On the other hand we can look at the practical effect of the law. When we look at the real world results of government agencies or others following the law, do the outcomes that occur result in equal protections for everyone?
While Courts clearly must look at both of these, my question to the nominees was which of these two ways of looking at things should have greater weight?
Since there is not a lot going on at the Capitol right now, you will probably have the opportunity to watch the hearing on CTN. What do you think of the two judge's answers to my questions?
