Judiciary Committee Postpones Downey Nomination
by Christine Stuart | August 21, 2007 5:32 PM
Posted to Courts
| State Capitol
The Judiciary Committee postponed Superior Court Judge John R. Downey’s elevation to the Appellate Court Tuesday while it gathered transcripts from hearings he presided over in Stamford Superior Court.
The transcripts seem to show Downey is “emphatic” in deciding not to hear cases involving illegal aliens, Judiciary Committee Co-Chairman Rep. Michael Lawlor said.
“He’s taken a position that is not part of the law,” Lawlor said.
Lawlor called this “a form of judicial activism.” He said it’s unclear whether Downey was “inaccurate or untruthful” about his position on the issue during his testimony Tuesday.
The transcript discussed during the confirmation hearing was one from a wrongful death case on May 24, 2002. On page 12 of the transcript Downey begins a line of questioning regarding the deceased man’s U.S. citizenship.
When Downey was questioned by lawmakers about the case, he said he “threw out an intellectual bone to challenge,” the plaintiff’s attorney, Brenden Leyden. “He didn’t bite on the bone and we continued with the issues of the case,” Downey said.
According to the court transcript, Downey asked, “I presume that he had all his documentation as to his being legal here in the United States?”
“I believe so. That hasn’t been raised as an issue by anyone,” Leyden replied.
“Well, it might be an issue in Judge Downey’s court, because I believe that no one has the right to sue in the State of Connecticut court system unless they’re duly authorized to sue,” Downey replied.
Leyden sent a letter to the Judiciary Committee in support of Downey’s nomination.
“From a policy perspective, I think it would be particularly problematic if we were to start jeopardizing the careers of judges on the basis of what amounts to academic musings in the course of oral argument,” Leyden wrote.
One of the transcripts that was brought to the committee’s attention after Downey’s testimony was postponed, was a May 9, 2002 divorce case between Ana Retuerto and Reducino Soto.
In the transcript, Downey says he will not hear the case because, “Only people who are legally here in the United States, in my opi—-are entitled to the rights and privledges that we extend to U.S. citizens. Why should a person become a U.S. citizen if they can otherwise enjoy the same rights as the rest of us especially after 9/11?”
The May 24, 2002 case, Jaiguay v. Vasquez, was appealed to the state Supreme Court. Eighteen of Downey’s decisions have been appealed and on appeal 10 have been affirmed, three have been partially affirmed, and five have been overturned.
Judiciary Committee Co-Chairman Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, began to question Downey Tuesday about his knowledge of immigration law and the equal protection clause only to be cut off by Sen. Andrew Roraback, R-Goshen, who reminded Downey that he didn’t have to answer any questions of law which might come before the court in the future.
McDonald attempted to continue, but Downey responded by saying “It’s probably not a good idea for me to comment on it now.”
At one point during the hearing Downey referred to himself in the third person like he did in the May 24, 2002 transcript and Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, asked him to refrain from making third party references to himself calling it “Seinfeldesque.”
The committee is expected to continue Downey’s nomination hearing sometime before Sept. 17.
Comments (14)
Posted by: Rizzo | August 21, 2007 8:27 PM
I'll take Downey over Andrew McDonald or Michael Lawlor any day. Downey sounds like a red-blooded American and those two limp wristed liberals want to scuttle the nomination because they don't have a nominee who will coddle criminals, turn the culture over to illegal aliens and declare gay marriage a constitutional right that the framers of the state constitution surely had intended (yeah right)
Posted by: Chris | August 21, 2007 8:42 PM
Downey's nomination imploded today. He's not even fit to be a judge.
I would not be surprised if we see his nomination removed
Posted by: Chris | August 21, 2007 9:12 PM
Rizzo- The Republicans also voted today to postpone and extend his nomination so they can review these latest developments.
Posted by: Tom | August 21, 2007 9:32 PM
There was post 9/11, now we have post Cheshire. What we need in Connecticut right now are tough Judges like Downey. I can tell you Judge Downey will protect children from abusers and not hesitate to jail criminals or violators. He is a good Judge, that said, I wouldn't want to be going before him if I was a liar or a cheat.
Posted by: Chris | August 21, 2007 9:45 PM
I wouldnt want to go before Judge Downey because he testified today that he creates law out of thin air and doesn't follow the constitution!
Posted by: Tom | August 21, 2007 10:01 PM
It's funny how quickly you defend a criminal's right to protection from our Constitution. What about victim's rights or Father's rights? Why do Judges in CT award custody to the Mother 99% of the time? If you want to talk about Constitutional rights, ask any Father who has fought in CT for his right's only to see them thrown out the window by liberal Judges. Judge Downey is an advocate for anyone who is seeking Justice. In this post Cheshire world we live in, I think you need to ask yourself what's really important. Is it your children's safety or some illegal alien or criminal's rights?
Posted by: Gideon | August 21, 2007 10:07 PM
Liberal judges in CT? Who, pray tell?
Posted by: Chris | August 21, 2007 10:15 PM
"Judge Downey is an advocate for anyone who is seeking Justice."
You obviously didn't watch today's hearings!
Judge Downey testified that he has the right as a judge to decide who has a right to seek justice. You can't deny that he said that!
He testified today that he is above the law and can decide who has a right to seek justice in "his" court.
Posted by: Tom | August 21, 2007 10:40 PM
I guess you're right, we need Judges that will conform more to what you're saying and what was that again?
Posted by: Chris | August 21, 2007 10:59 PM
What I'm saying is that judges should follow the constitution and follow what higher courts have ruled.
Downey today testified that he doesn't care what higher courts have ruled -- what he says in his court goes in his court, whether higher courts have ruled or not.
Posted by: Tom | August 21, 2007 11:13 PM
And also what he says in his chambers. Sometimes you need a Judge that is willing to ACT on his gut principle and do what's right to protect children rather than WAIT and put children at more risk. Sometimes you need a Judge who will actually respond to wrongdoing rather than do nothing about it.
Posted by: Chris | August 22, 2007 7:45 AM
Umm, no. You need a judge who will enforce the law, period.
Posted by: Leon J Karvelis Jr | August 22, 2007 12:01 PM
What ever happened to the rule of law? Downey is a dangerous, legally ignorant judge who imperils anyone seeking redress in a Connecticut court on the basis of statute and legal precedent. Furthermore, his lionizing of Strom Thurmond, a life-long bigot and leader of opposition to everything our state has stood for historically, is alarming. Judges should be tough on criminals, but only in the context of recognized law.
Posted by: Tom | August 22, 2007 2:28 PM
I agree with you Chris, we need Judges like Downey who will enforce the law and punish lawbreakers.