CT News Junkie

A Connecticut news site that understands the usual media offerings just…aren’t…enough.

McDonald Nomination Hearing Stays On Script

by | Jan 14, 2013 6:05pm () Comments | Commenting has expired | Share

Former state Sen. Andrew McDonald told the Judiciary Committee he once chaired that his diverse background in both private and public legal service and his ability to be a neutral arbiter has prepared him for a role on the state’s Supreme Court.

McDonald appeared before the legislature’s Judiciary Committee on Monday to answer questions about his nomination, including some tough ones about legislation he proposed during his eight year tenure as a state senator and positions he’s taken as the governor’s top legal counsel.

After a more than two hours of questions during the hearing, the Judiciary Committee voted 41 to 2 in favor of his nomination. If the full legislature confirms his nomination then McDonald would be the first openly gay appellate jurist. 

Sen. Beth Bye, D-West Hartford, an openly gay lawmaker, said she watched McDonald when he was co-chair of the Judiciary Committee handle testimony from people “criticizing the morality of your very family.” During McDonald’s tenure the committee tackled civil unions and was headed toward approving gay marriage when the Supreme Court approved it.

“You sat there very calmly and politely and gave that person as much respect as someone who agreed one hundred percent with you,” Bye said regarding McDonald’s temperament. “I think you’ll make a wonderful Supreme Court justice.”

A handful of lawmakers warned Monday that the 46-year-old is far from being “one dimensional.”

Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, said they may have agreed on a lot of “high profile” issues, but he doesn’t recall work with McDonald ever being “disagreeable.”

The Republican even gave McDonald a chance to explain a legislative proposal he made back in 2009 to change the corporate structure of the Catholic Church. The proposal, which would have given elected laity more control over the church’s finances, was withdrawn at the request of constituents after 4,000 Catholics traveled to the Capitol to protest the bill.

McDonald explained that he introduced the legislation at the request of a constituent, who was upset with the embezzlement of more than $1 million from churches in Greenwich and Darien. He said the embezzlement was done within a statutory scheme that’s existed since 1821.

He said he didn’t propose the bill to single out the Catholic Church. The state has a whole set of organizational statutes for various religious denominations.

But McDonald later explained he probably could have reached out to more people in the Connecticut Catholic Conference in drafting the proposal.

“In retrospect, I probably could have reached out to the archbishop and the other bishops and engaged them in a discussion ahead of time before the legislation was raised,” McDonald said.

Sen. Michael McLachlan, R-Danbury, said he believes the legislation was unconstitutional and he doesn’t think it was appropriate. That’s why McLachlan voted against McDonald.

Rep. Al Adinolfi, R-Cheshire, also voted against McDonald because he doesn’t believe he has enough experience. He said it’s not fair that McDonald gets elevated to the Supreme Court without first sitting on a lower court.

“To me it was just a political appointment,” Adinolfi, who shook McDonald’s hand and congratulated him after the vote, said.

If confirmed McDonald would become one of three Supreme Court justices who have been nominated to the high court without sitting on a lower trial or appellate court.

Members of the Judiciary Committee also asked him about how he would interpret cases as they came before the court, most of which will be based upon challenges to legislation written by the General Assembly.

Asked if he would be an activist judge, McDonald said he supports the plain language reading of the law.

“I believe it is the right of the legislature to articulate the law as it deems appropriate to the public policy of the state, and the legislature preserves for itself the right to get it wrong,” McDonald told the committee. “If it is wrong it’s the obligation of the legislature to correct that.”

Some lawmakers wondered what made McDonald ready for the Supreme Court.

He said his ability to listen intently and his work ethic. Unlike other judges, who often lean on their law clerks, McDonald said he likes researching and writing a great deal. He said the one area where he feels he needs to improve is the area of family law, which is a practice area he hasn’t had to deal with in his legal career.

In 2004, McDonald started and chaired the appellate practice within the law firm of Pullman and Comley. Since graduating from UConn Law School, McDonald has worked at Pullman and Comley, which he said honored his commitment to public service and allowed him the necessary time to be a state senator for eight years. He took a brief hiatus to become corporation counsel during Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s tenure as mayor of Stamford. In 2010, he decided not to be sworn in to the state Senate so he could take a job as Malloy’s chief legal counsel.

With McDonald’s nomination imminent, Malloy will announce his next chief legal counsel Tuesday, according to sources.

Tags: , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

Comments

(7) Archived Comments

posted by: Stephen Mendelsohn | January 14, 2013  8:21pm

BS"D

There were a few people opposed to the nomination who testified.  Part of my testimony concerned comments McDonald made about people with disabilities, including Cathy Ludlum, regarding Ludlum at al. v. Malloy, the lawsuit against Executive Order 10, calling Cathy and other plaintiffs “radical Right”:  http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/JUDdata/Tmy/2013ZZ-00000-R000114-Mendelsohn, Stephen-TMY.PDF Not all of the criticism of Andrew McDonald deals with “culture war” issues.

posted by: JamesBronsdon | January 15, 2013  1:38pm

I’m looking forward to reading the transcripts of the hearing.  I hope Mr. McDonald renounced his unconstitutional 2009 legislative effort to regulate the finances of the Catholic Church.  That would be important testimony to have on the record.  Past excuses I’ve heard that it was just submitted on behalf of a constituent do not justify such legislation.  I’m just as interested to see which lawmakers thought that a subject worthy of probing. My sense is that many - Republican legislators as well as Democrats - could not care less.  Go along to get along.

posted by: Lawrence | January 15, 2013  8:38pm

The 41-2 vote and the lack of public opposition is a ringing endorsement for an eminently qualified man and an enormous defeat for the homophobic “Family Institute.”

posted by: JamesBronsdon | January 15, 2013  10:51pm

Lawrence, thanks so much for that civil contribution to the dialog.

posted by: JamesBronsdon | January 15, 2013  10:56pm

A vote immediately after the hearing, regardless of the outcome, suggests to me that the legislature is not interested in doing the due diligence appropriate for a nomination of this importance.  The fact that the Republicans are a rubber stamp is certainly a disappointment.

posted by: JamesBronsdon | January 16, 2013  10:18pm

Lawrence, I received your vile, repugnant response to my post.  Although it was spiked and unpublished for your inappropriate comments, the miracle of automated blogging delivered it to my mailbox.  My first reaction was that I do not want to engage with someone like you.  But after thinking about it further I realized that this disguised identity blogging stuff lends itself to the kind of pure vitriol you put out there.  (Yes, maybe I’m a little slow on the uptake to realize that.)  And perhaps my tone has been a little sharper than it otherwise would have been had I used my real name.  So, I’ve resolved to respond henceforth under my real name, James (Frederick) Bronsdon, and I invite you to do the same.  Perhaps together we will begin, in some small way, to raise the level of discourse.
Best Regards,
Jim

posted by: Lawrence | January 17, 2013  6:21am

Bottom line Fred, justice will prevail, regardless of the wishes of some with outdated prejudices.

Have a good day.

Social Networks We Use

Connecticut Network

Categories

Our Partners

Sponsored Messages