The following is a guest post by Judiciary Committee Co-Chair Mike Lawlor. Please include potential questions for the nominee in the comments or email Rep. Lawlor below. – Gabe
In about three weeks the Judiciary Committee will conduct confirmation hearings for Judge Chase Rogers, Governor Rell’s recent nominee to be Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court. Judge Rogers was confirmed just last year to be a judge of the state’s Appellate Court. Prior to that, she was a Superior Court Judge for eight years.
See Gov. Rell’s press release:
http://www.ct.gov/governorrell/cwp/view.asp?A=2791&Q=332464
Members of our committee will be able to ask Judge Rogers questions during the hearing. She will be testifying under oath. We imagine that the questions will range from her judicial philosophy to her views on running the 4000+ employee judicial branch of government. Please feel free to suggest questions here and by emailing me at MLawlor99@juno.com.
Keep in mind that judicial nominees typically refuse to answer questions regarding how they would rule in a particular case. This is especially true when a case is actually pending or likely to come before the supreme court.
Don’t forget that the Chief Justice is more than the head judge on the court. If confirmed, she would be the head of an entire branch of government with extraordinary powers in running it. She would not serve at the pleasure of the Governor, as do commissioners at agencies. She would serve an 8 year term and, if the past is any guide, she would probably be renominated and reconfirmed for additional terms by future governors and could serve a full 20 years until her mandatory retirement age of 70.
In Connecticut, the judicial branch is responsible for running the courts , and it is responsible for adult probation, juvenile probation, juvenile detention facilities, two adult jails, crime victim services, child support enforcement and judicial marshals.
See the Governor’s proposed budget for the judicial branch:
Proposed Budget for Judicial Branch
During the last few years there has been a great deal of controversy about the position of Chief Justice and about the openness of the courts.
Over the past year, two reports have been issued by task forces appointed by Governor Rell and acting Chief Justice Borden recommending a number of changes to address the openness issue. You can read both reports here:
http://www.ct.gov/governorrell/cwp/view.asp?a=1809&q=320408
http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/news/PublicAccess/
During last year’s confirmation hearings for Judge Rogers, she was asked some questions about her judicial philosophy. Among other things she said that she is not a “strict constructionist”, that she believes there is a “right to privacy” in the U. S. and state constitutions, and that she believes it is appropriate for appellate courts to consider “other jurisdictions, including other countries” when thinking through decisions on the appellate court.
You can read the entire transcript by using the advanced search feature at the legislature’s website,
for the transcript of the Judiciary Committee public hearing on March 8, 2006.
Scroll down to the questions for Judge Rogers, about 2/3 the way down the page.
Members of the public are also welcome to testify at Judge Rogers’ hearing. You can sign up on the day of the hearing and we will call you after up after Judge Rogers is done. The committee will most likely vote on the nomination a few days after the hearing. Then, the nomination will move on to both the House and the Senate. She will need a majority vote in both chambers in order to be appointed.
Mike Lawlor
81 responses so far ↓
Thanks, Rep. Lawlor, for taking the time to communicate with us here at CTLP.
I’d be curious to know what Judge Rogers thinks of the recent moves towards judicial openness and what changes, if any, she would implement in that direction.
We have asked Judge Rogers to review both reports and to tell us what her views are on each recommendation. Im sure that will take some time, but we do expect to have her response before the hearing.
I can’t fathom a way you can get her on the record on this, but I would love to hear her position on State v. Courchesne and the legislature’s reaction in Public Act 03-154 (specificly, the constitutionality of the act).
For the interested, here is an essay supporting the decision and criticizing the act.
I would like to know if Judge Rogers thinks that the CT Criminal Justice Commission, which oversees the prosecutors in this state and counts among its members two state judges, violates the concept of separation of powers between the executive branch and the judicial branch.
I’d like to know where Rep. Lawlor stands on the issue of wax vs. razors for getting one’s head as shiny as possible. I’d like for Rep. Noujaim to weigh-in as well.
I would like to know why Republicans are so immature, but that’s not a question that Judge Rogers needs to be asked or requested to answer.
Rep Lawlor, I can’t understand how we can discuss anything judicial until we as a state recognize the very basic rights of same sex couples to enjoy the same rights as hetero-sexual couples in marriage. I know you have been a great leader in this area and I thank you but we need to get some real action. I hope the time is now especially since Democrats now hold a Super-Majority. Thanks again for all your efforts. SD
Babaloo, it’s a #1 buzz cut, no razor. Sandy, thanks for the advice, but our committee will deal with quite a few issues this year, two years ago we were able to take action on 107 of our committees bills plus 35 judicial nominations, and this year will probably be the same. We will be having a hearing on marriage equality in a few weeks. We will be able to deal with that and the chief justice nomination.
Oh, and Gabe, yes we will ask about Courchesne. for those of you who care to know, Courchesne is a case where the supreme court tried to decide if they were required go by the exact language of the legislature’s bills or to, instead, disregard the exact language and try to figure out what we really meant to say. It’s an interesting debate for lawyers.
Rep. Lawlor: Do you or your colleagues intend to question Judge Rogers on her view of the probate system? I think it would a worthwhile (and ethically appropriate) line of questioning. Thanks for your time.
rep. lawlor..two questions: why wasnt zarella given a hearing?
do you think sullivan was a good cj??
From last year’s Bulletin listing hearings at the legislature:
*JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 2006
The Judiciary Committee will hold a public hearing to be followed by a committee meeting on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 at 1: 00 P. M. in Room 2C of the LOB. Please submit 55 copies of written testimony to Committee staff one hour prior to the start of the hearing in the Judiciary Committee, Room 2500 of the LOB. Sign-up for the hearing will begin at 12: 30 P. M. in Room 2C of the LOB. Unofficial sign-up sheets have no standing with the Committee.
SUBJECT MATTER: Judicial Nominations
BILLS/RESOLUTIONS TO BE HEARD:
To be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court:
The Honorable Peter T. Zarella of West Hartford
That hearing was canceled when both the House and Senate scheduled regular sessions for that day. Under the rules governing the legislature, committees can not meet while either house is in session. As it turned out, the House or Senate was in session every single day from April 17 until its constitutional adjournment date, May 3, 2006. The Committee’s deadline for voting on Justice Zarella’s nomination was Monday, April 24. We did meet on that day and we did vote on the nomination. The minutes of that meeting are:
Judiciary Committee
MEETING MINUTES
Monday, April 24, 2006
10:00 AM in Room 2E of the LOB
I. The meeting was called to order at 10:12 AM by Chairman, Sen. McDonald A. S27 .
V. REPORT ON JUDICIAL NOMINATION:
1. To be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court:
a. Honorable Peter T. Zarella of West Hartford
Action: JF
Vote: Yea 17 Nay 1 Abstain 17 Absent 6
Motion: Rep. Farr
2nd: Sen. Kissel
Discussion: Rep. Farr, Rep. Dillon, Sen. Roraback, Rep. Lawlor, Rep. Cafero, Sen. Kissel, Rep. Hamm, Sen. Gomes
Regarding Justice Sullivan: I think he was a good Chief Justice in many ways. I had a very good working relationship with him, and many positive things were accomplished during his tenure. But, his conduct in Zarella nominations was a major mistake. That should be self evident, and he has acknowledged that. Aside from that, my main criticism of his tenure would be the fact that he, and his predecessor, broke with longstanding tradition and exercised extraordinary control over the judicial branch on a day to day basis. In the past, that was the role of the Chief Court Administrator. Among other things, it is and was clear that the Rowland style, for want of a better expression, had infected the judicial branch during Justice Sullivan’s tenure. Much of he mess we are cleaning up now resulted from that approach. Acting Chief Justice Borden has done a great service to our state and to the judiciary by substantially reversing that course. My hope is that Judge Rogers is capable of continuing in that direction.
Dear Rep Lawlor, I would like to commend you for your outreach. Allthough I disagree with you on many positions your willingness to entertain these posts is commendable.
…but that vote became moot after ga-7…i guess my question is, why was the judiciary committee stalling zarellas nomination, which speaking of traditions, broke form tradition sicne the last four cjs were set in pretty mich in 2 weeks…what would be the difference in delaying a nomination or delaying an opinion?
“exercised extraordinary control over the judicial branch on a day to day basis” well, again im very confused, isnt that the job of the cj and a quality you will be looking for in rogers?
“Among other things, it is and was clear that the Rowland style, for want of a better expression, had infected the judicial branch during Justice Sullivan’s tenure”..if that was the case, why didnt the judiciary committee probe that at the time? was there anything illegal going on?
rep. lawlor, i found this situation to be fascinating and am convinced that there is more thant meets the eye with all involved….i beleive that everyone was playing politics, am i wrong in that assumption?
Dear Rep. Lawlor,
I feel the co-chairs of judicail committee did a great dis service to the citizens of connecticut by denying Justice Zarella his fair public hearing. There were many excused used but the bottom line was you never ever intended to hold a public hearing. That behavior is and will always be remember as unfair and disgraceful. I think the former Chief Justice said he made a mistake. Not a major mistake. I also rememer 3 chief justices saying what he did, did not rise to the level of breaking a canon. One justice said it was ” a tempest in a teapot”. This was never about Justice Sullivan it was always about stopping Peter Zarella’s chance of becomming the next Chief Justice. From the testimony from the jrc Justice Borden did something far worse. Justice Borden told a friend to summit a argument to the supreme court of which he agreed with. I can only hope and pray Justice Rogers has the same hands on approach as Justice Sullivan and keeps the decisons of the judiciary within the judiciaray and as far a way the two co-chiars as possible. This whole thing was rediculous. You know it and so do most logicall people in Connecticut. You praise Justice Borden only because you agree with his views and that is the only reason. I hope Justice Rogers takes back control of this branch. The judicial committee has caused enough problems between the three branches of goverment. Many people think it is time to get new leadership in this committee. The games have gone on long enough
Hi, Fresh. Well, for starters, we are elected officials, i.e. politicians, and politics is what we do. Your question should be why did we do what we did. I can speak for myself. I have been a member of the Judiciary Committee for 21 years, and chair for 13 years. In the past, CJ nominations were well vetted before the Governor announced them. In the past, we always knew ahead of time that there would be a nomination coming in the near future and who the main contenders were. That was not the case this time. Justice Sullivan had almost three more years left in his term and had told no one, except, apparently, for Justice Zarella and the Governor, that he would be retiring in April, 2006. We expressed our concerns to the Governor immediately after she made her announcement on March 17, through a press release which was handed to Sen. McDonald and myself at late that afternoon while we were conducted a committee public hear. It’s worth noting that that was St. Patrick’s Day, and a Friday. We met with the Governor the following Tuesday and asked her to delay submitting the nomination until after the session, i.e. after June 3. She very publicly refused and scolded us in the process. We had explained the problem fully: 1. We needed time to do our vetting and get ready for the hearing. 2. We had a full agenda before the committee at that time [our deadline for acting on committee bills was March 27] so we would not be able to focus on that until then. 3.) There were four significant issues with Justice Zarella a. his record as Chair of the Criminal Justice Commission and complaints they hired virtually no african american or latino prosecutors during his 6 year tenure b. articles he had written advocating that non-judicial functions like probation and victim services should be jettisoned by the judicial branch c. his record as chair of the Judicial Rules Committee and its record regarding court openness during his tenure and d. his relationship with former Governor Rowland and his vote against the Impeachment Committee as a member of the Supreme Court. We did schedule a public hearing as stated above and we were fully prepared to conduct it on April 18. We had told the Governor that, given the timing of her nomination, it would be difficult to get the work done. We had told her what the remaining weeks of the legislative session would be like and that finding a day to have the hearing would be difficult. And, perhaps most importantly, I suspected that there was some “playing of politics” involved in the timing of this surprise announcement. As, as later events would prove, that was the case.
Regarding the role of the CJ, yes, the CJ does have the ultimate say. It’s worth noting that, technically, the British Monarch technically has the final say in the UK, Canada, Bermuda and quite a few other places. But, the tradition in the judicial branch has been that the CJ functions more as a head of state and the chief court administator functions more as a head of government. There is an appropriate balance, and Justices McDonald and Sullivan, the two Rowland appointments, upset that balance, in my opinion. We are hoping that the new chief justice will restore the appropriate, traditional balance. I think it is fair to say that most judges and lawyers hope that is the case too. Regarding the Rowland Style, that is really a reference to cronyism and nepotism. Neither is a crime, nor is it necessarily corrupt, but it is wrong. It is worth noting that, when we did become aware of actual illegal activity, we did take action and we and the Judicial Review Council did hold Justice Sullivan accountable. That process of accountability will continue.
Rep. Lawlor –
First of all, I join those who have already thanked your for this extraordinary give and take. Second, although I disagree with you on a number of issues, you have always seemed to give opposing views a fair shake in your Committee – a practice that not all chairs share, unfortunately. So much for the schmmozing –
As for Judge Rogers, how much will you ask her, or permit her to be asked, about issues that might come up before the court in the near future? I understand she can’t comment on a pending case, but will she be asked hypothetically about the death penalty, same sex marriage, abortion, or legislative intrusions into the judicial or executive branches as violative of the seperation of powers? I recall a controvery with Justice Katz during her renomination regarding her decision in the State v. Johnson case, and quite a bit of dancing around the issue of the death penalty. Just curious if this hearing will be long on judicial theories and short on specifics….
Dar rep Lawlor–Will you question Judge Rogers stance on same-sex marriage? Would her position on same-sex marriage influence your ultimate decision to confirm her?
I don’t ever remember anyone saying what Justice Sullivan did was illegal. Again rediculous. As far as holding a hearing the committee had all the info by your own account at the judicial committee’s hearings and it found many excuses not to have a hearing. The committe had several months to find one day to hold a hearing and it just refused. Why should any governor delay the nomination. One thing that was missed here is it it the governors nomination. It is the committe job to hold a public hearing. It did not do that. I think it is fair to say that from all accounts the balance in the judiciary was exactly where it should be in the judicial dept. I hope it remains there. I do what the thank you for this blog. It is very interesting.
Members of the Committee can ask whatever questions they want, and I’m sure they will, appropriate or not. Judge Rogers will decide for herself what is an appropriate answer. I remember the Justice Katz hearing very well, and she was asked about her views on the death penalty many times and, as I recall, she made it very clear that she was opposed to the death penalty. Regarding marriage equality, I’m sure Judge Rogers will be asked about that. If you had read the transcript of the hearing last year, regarding her nomination to the Appellate Court, you would see that she was asked many questions about that and you can read her answers. My original post above tells you how to find it. I would paste it here, but it is much too long. Regarding my own vote, it wont be based on her views on marriage equality alone. I am much more interested in her views on openness and on how the branch should be run. But, I hope she votes in favor of it when it gets to the court, I hope they all do. But, the court is not the legislature. They are not deciding what is the right thing to do, they are deciding what the Connecticut Constitution requires. That is more of a technical question, and there are good arguments on both sides. All else being equal, I would prefer that the legislature simply say that civil unions should be called marriages, because thats what they really are. It would be a lot simpler if we did that. We will have the chance to debate that this year.
DPSULL, the Judicial Review Council said that what Justice Sullivan did was illegal, and he was suspended as a result.
Let me repphrase this one since it didn’t get addressed; and Mr. Lawlor did share with us what he uses to trim the hair on his head and specifically mentioned Justice Zarella’s performance on the Criminal Justice Commission;;I would like to know if Mr. Lawlor thinks that the CT Criminal Justice Commission, which oversees the prosecutors in this state and counts among its members two state judges, violates the concept of separation of powers between the executive branch and the judicial branch and if he will ask Judge Rogers about the issue.
I read your response with respect to “cronyism and nepotism” . I think I read in the hartford current that your brother has a good job in state goverment. He just recently got the job if the current is accurate and that is a big “if”. I think a state attorney job. I presume he his very qualified but you were quick to point out that the Rowland style was wrong. I don’t think your brother getting a state job is wrong as long as he is qualified. Do you? I look forward to your response.
Toucan – where is that italics tag supposed to end? I can fix it, but I’m not sure where the italics are supposed to end!
Hi, Toucan, the Criminal Justice Commission is in the state constitution, so it cant actually be unconstitutional. Here is what the Constitution says:
ARTICLE XXIII.
Article fourth of the constitution is amended by adding a new section to read as follows: There shall be established within the executive department a division of criminal justice which shall be in charge of the investigation and prosecution of all criminal matters. Said division shall include the chief state’s attorney, who shall be its administrative head, and the state’s attorneys for each judicial district, which districts shall be established by law. The prosecutorial power of the state shall be vested in a chief state’s attorney and the state’s attorney for each judicial district. The chief state’s attorney shall be appointed as prescribed by law. There shall be a commission composed of the chief state’s attorney and six members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the General Assembly, two of whom shall be judges of the Superior Court. Said commission shall appoint a state’s attorney for each judicial district and such other attorneys as prescribed by law.
Adopted November 28, 1984.
Regarding my brother Kevin. He is the State’s Attorney for the Judicial District of Ansonia/Milford. He was a career prosecutor before his appointment. He certainly earned that on his own, and you can check with anyone familiar with that courthouse if you would like to verify that. I hoped he would be appointed when former State’s Attorney Mary Galvin retired to become dean of the national prosecutors college in South Carolina, as he had been her chief assistant for many years. I did not speak to anyone on his behalf, nor would I do such a thing. He got it the old fashioned way, he earned it and I am very proud of him and the job he does.
gabe: I don’t know what the hell I did wrong only Mr. Lawlor was supposed to be bracketed but it went on and on and on;; Sorry.
I hoped this gets discussed today too, BTW;
http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18075870&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=590581&rfi=6
OK, Mr. Lawlor, I knew that the Commission was established in the 1984 State constitutional ammendmment but I don’t recall asking if it were constitutional. My question is don’t you think – like I do – that it violates the concept of sepeation of powers?;; not to mention good managerial concepts – I am sure you know the perception that CT prosecutors often act like cowboys with little central policy oversight if by way of no other example being the recent court testimony on how they seek the death penalty – in the federal system the US AG makes the final decision…………..in Ct any prosecutor can and may do that.
Nobody ever said you spoke to anyone. My point was that I don’t think it was wrong your brother got a state job with yourself being the co-chair of the judicial committee. As long as he was and is qualified Not everything is “nepotism”. I find it hard to beleive everything Governor Rowland did was wrong. This is and example of a family member who was qualified earning a state job. It is not fair to pick and choose what one thinks is nepotism and what is not without all the facts. I also read your comments on what a Chief Justice is suppose to do as opposed to what a Chief Court administrator duties are. I feel it is upto the Chief Justice to decide and it really has nothing to do with anyone in a completely seperate branch of goverment. Is there a rule that proves this theory wrong. I am not sure why a co-chair of a committee is deciding this role. Would it be fair for the next CHief justice to decide what the speaker’s role should be oppossed to yours??. Thank you for your response. I would also like to say I saw the hearing your committee held on CPTV. I hope all hearing could be held with such professionalism. I do as a citizen of the state of connecticut think the hearings futhur polorized the three branches of goverment and I was not sure what the point was.
“Justice Sullivan had almost three more years left in his term and had told no one”…from the jrc and committee hearings his health is seriously poor and isnt that his business if he decides to retire…with three yeras left, if he was in love with power wouldnt he have stayed to the very end.
“Tuesday and asked her to delay submitting the nomination until after the session, i.e. after June 3.”….this i dont comprehend…is it safe to assume taht this may have been the case in hopes that a new governor would be elected in nov and therefore nominating someone else??? and wasnt mcdonald working for malloys campaing???
“But, the tradition in the judicial branch has been that the CJ functions more as a head of state and the chief court administator functions more as a head of government.”…so in essence the chief court administartor has more power than the cj???
“We are hoping that the new chief justice will restore the appropriate, traditional balanc”…what criteria would rogers have to follow in this area???
“Regarding the Rowland Style, that is really a reference to cronyism and nepotism. Neither is a crime, nor is it necessarily corrupt, but it is wrong.”…are there any legislators whose family members hold government jobs??
“it would be difficult to get the work done”…there were some very important bills passed in less time
“1. We needed time to do our vetting and get ready for the hearing. 2. We had a full agenda before the committee at that time [our deadline for acting on committee bills was March 27] so we would not be able to focus on that until then. 3.) There were four significant issues with Justice Zarell”…could 4.) we were hoping for a democratic governor in november???
“It is worth noting that, when we did become aware of actual illegal activity”…so sullivan did in fact engage in illegal activity? i thought it was unethical? or is there a difference?
anyhow, thanks for your time,
The US Congress makes the rules for the federal courts; the CT GA can and should make the rules for the CT Courts; I hope Judge Rogers agrees.
Fixed!
Hi, DPSULL, under the constitution there is, of course, a system of checks and balances. The other branches can affect what the other branches do through a variety of mechanisms, all of which were part of the original design. The legislature, more than the other two branches, has the ultimate oversight role. After all, it is the General Assembly which has the ultimate power to remove any executive or judicial branch official. The General Assembly has given the Judiciary Committee the responsibility of oversight over the entire judicial branch. The office of chief court administrator was created by the legislature in the first place, for example. Here are the General Assembly’s joint rules regarding the Committee:
6) A committee on JUDICIARY which shall have cognizance of all matters relating to courts, judicial procedures, criminal law, probate courts, probation, parole, wills, estates, adoption, divorce, bankruptcy, escheat, law libraries, deeds, mortgages, conveyancing, preservation of land records and other public documents, the law of business organizations, uniform laws, validations, authorizations to sue and to appeal, claims against the state, all judicial nominations, all nominations of workers’ compensation commissioners, and all matters relating to the Judicial Department, the Department of Correction and to the commission on Human Rights and Opportunities; all bills carrying civil penalties which exceed the sum of, or which may exceed in the aggregate, five thousand dollars; and all bills carrying criminal penalties, other than infractions, favorably reported by any other committee shall be referred to said committee, provided the committee’s consideration shall be limited to the criminal penalties established in such bills and shall not extend to their substantive provisions or purpose.
So, yes, we do get to decide these things.
Here is the current statute, enacted by the legislature, not the chief justice, establishing and defining the office of chief court administrator:
Sec. 51-5a. Duties and powers of Chief Court Administrator. (a) The Chief Court Administrator: (1) Shall be the administrative director of the Judicial Department and shall be responsible for the efficient operation of the department, the prompt disposition of cases and the prompt and proper administration of judicial business; (2) shall meet periodically at such places and times as he may designate with any judge, judges, or committee of judges, and with the Probate Court Administrator to transact such business as is necessary to insure the efficient administration of the Judicial Department; (3) may issue such orders, require such reports and appoint other judges to such positions to perform such duties, as he deems necessary to carry out his responsibilities; (4) may assign, reassign and modify assignments of the judges of the Superior Court to any division or part of the Superior Court and may order the transfer of actions under sections 51-347a and 51-347b; and (5) may provide for the convening of conferences of the judges of the several courts, or any of them, and of such members of the bar as he may determine, for the consideration of matters relating to judicial business, the improvement of the judicial system and the effective administration of justice in this state.
(b) The Chief Court Administrator may establish reasonable fees for conducting searches of court records. No federal, state or municipal agency shall be required to pay any such fee.
###########
and DPSULL, it is not “nepotism” if there is no favoritism. If, however, people are hired because or who their relatives are, that’s nepotism.
Ok, Im off to the capitol…….
I’ll keep driving my point home if I may. Mr Lawlor says in #32 that The legislature, more than the other two branches, has the ultimate oversight role. but they have no say in who gets appointed to be prosecutor in the executive branch becuase that’s relegated to the CJC, which counts among its members two state judges — from the judicial branch. In the federal system the Senate confirms regional prosecutors and the US AG by way of comparison.
Very Helpfull response. But it seems to me that alot of the responsiblities are shared by both the chief justice as well as the chief court administrator. I do see that the committee is responsible for making sure the judicial branch is functioning with in its authority. But based on what you sent me it is not responsible for deciding how it functions. That is upto the chief justice. Anyway nepotism or favoritism- I think by all accounds Governor Rowland nominated the best people he thought was capable of handling importand responsibilities. Because one does not agree with these people makes it unfair to say there was favortism. Is this blog over now??.
I looked back at what the JRC said. They said he was found guilty of breaking 2 cannon’s of ethics. They did not say what he did was illegal. Please be fair to the JRC and Chief Justice Sullivan.
Anyway nepotism or favoritism- I think by all accounds Governor Rowland nominated the best people he thought was capable of handling importand responsibilities. If you mean taking care of Rowland than I agree – Vinnie DeRosa was exceptional at that!!!
Rep. Lawlor: Did you see my question about Chief Justice Rogers and the probate system? (Please see above.) I can’t seem to find a reply to my question and all other questions appear to have been answered? Many thanks.
Oops, sorry about that. Yes, of course we will ask about probate courts. We have had some preliminary discussions with her, and it will be addressed by her during her appearance before the committee. I know there are already some on going discussions between the branch and the probate court folks, and Im assuming she is being kept up to date.
oh, one more thing. The Chief Probate Court Administrator [Currently Judge Lawlor -- no relation
] is appointed by the CJ and serves at the pleasure of the CJ.
I just read the blog pertaining to the probate system. I think it is prudent to point out that Judge Lawlor recieved an award for having the best run probate system in the NATION. I happen to read that in the hartford current. If it was the Chief Justice who did appoint Judge Lawlor then kudos to Chief Justice Sullivan.
Yes, Judge Lawlor is doing a great job, even if he is not a relative of mine. I would also note that the program for which they won the award was approved by the legislature and enjoys wide support here and truly is a national model. It began in my area, greater New Haven, and does involve our Probate Judge in East Haven, Mike Albis, New Haven Probate Judge Jack Keyes and our other neighboring judges. It is a great success story.
You can read their original submission which won the award here:
http://ssl.csg.org/innovations/2006/2006winnersalternates/CT%20New%20Haven%20Regional%20Children’s%20Probate%20Court.pdf
Oh, and DPSULL, the Canons of Judicial Ethics are binding on judges and are the incorporated into the general statutes and are, certainly, law.
Kudos to everybody involved then. If I singled out Judge Lawlor then I apoligize. I know a good system takes many people but I was unaware that the former Chief Justice Sullivan was responsible for appointing Judge Lawlor the head of the probate system. By all accounts he is doing a wonderfull job. Thanks for the info.
Rep. Lawlor: Thanks for your prompt response! I was under the impression that CJ Sullivan was hostile to the current probate system? In remarks to the Conn Bar Association in June 2004 he stated: “The next topic I’d like to address tonight has to do with some very serious concerns I recently raised in my remarks to the probate judges in Connecticut at their annual probate assembly. My concerns center on the fact that the probate court system is in a financial crisis, as the system has become too unwieldy to support itself.”
http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/news/Speech/Sullivan-CBA-04.html
??
From what the JRC ruled chief justice sullivan did not break a statue, rule or law. The chief justice broke a canon which is an ethical violation. What he did was not illegal. Cannons are ethical rather than legal or illegal. I will agree to disagree based on what I read in the JRC. It was never stated Justice Sullivan did anything illegal. But I will agree to disagree.
If we are going to talk about CJ Sullivan’s actions, I would be curious to know Rep. Lawlor’s view — after reading my previous post — on Justice Borden’s decision to contact the judiciary committee about CJ Sullivan’s actions. On 4/25/06 I wrote:
The Courant and other publications have thus far concentrated on the disturbing and improper decision of former Chief Justice Sullivan to withhold a judicial opinion with the hopes of positively affecting Justice Zarella’s nomination. Criticism of the former Chief Justice of the state is appropriate and fair and his actions have the possibility of sacking Justice Zarella’s nomination. Because I have no doubt that this aspect of the story will be sufficiently combed over by the media I wish to concentrate on an equally disturbing aspect of the story.
Equally disturbing is Justice David Borden’s decision to inform the senate judiciary committee of the inner workings of the court, no matter how offensive, via his letter. The Courant has posted Justice Borden’s letter and a thorough reading of it yields absolutely no reason — other than political — for the acting chief justice to advise the senate judiciary committee of the events that transpired. Justice Borden explains in his letter his authority to contact the judiciary committee as follows: “I believe it is my duty, acting as the head of the Judicial Branch pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 51-3, to bring these facts to your attention.” However, nothing in Section 51-3 (which merely indicates that Borden is properly the acting chief justice) outlines such a “duty” to become involved in a political process. Short of any legislative empowerment, Borden’s view, taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that his powers as chief justice are plenary. Given the history of the separation of powers, this simply cannot be. (A few examples demonstrate the ridiculousness of Justice Borden’s argument. For example, since this “power” is not identified in the General Statutes, why would only the chief justice have it? Why not junior justices, too? If the sitting chief justice were the violator would the next justice in line have the power?) Moreover, to the extent that Justice Borden believed Chief Justice Sullivan’s actions were improper because they affected a political process, his actions had the same affect and were therefore equally improper. After all, what would happen if Justice Zarella, during his confirmation were to misstate his position on a prior case? Would Justice Borden (or any other justice) be under a “duty” to report this misstatement? After all, such a misstatement would be just as likely as this incident to affect the senate judiciary committee. Such a duty simply does not exist especially when it would threaten to undermine the whole integrity of the court.
It’s also relevant to note that Justice Borden — who many regard as the intellectual leader of the court — was not powerless to act in response to Chief Justice Sullivan’s actions. He could have brought the matter to the attention of the Judicial Review Council. Justice Borden has been on the court since 1990 and he was therefore quite familiar with the disciplinary punishment handed out by that body to fellow Justice Fleming Norcott in 1994 for serious although dissimilar indiscretions. That would have been the proper forum to air his concerns.
The issue is also compounded somewhat by the fact that Justice Borden was known to have been desirous of the chief justice seat prior to the nomination of Judge Sullivan. This history between the justices will no doubt be brought to light and will also make this rift even uglier.
One final observation, albeit one akin to a possible conspiracy theory. On March 15 the senate reappointed Justice Borden to another eight year term. (Because he will be forced under state law to retire from the Supreme Court at age seventy he will not serve out his full term.) Chief Justice Sullivan announced his retirement two days later. Could it be that CJ Sullivan postponed his announcement until after Justice Borden’s reappointment in the hopes that this would diminish the chance that Justice Borden would be the nominee? Perhaps that is a stretch, but one thing is certain: it would not be the first time that a judge (state or federal) delayed his retirement for succession reasons.
I’ll blog more on this later as the story develops, especially since I believe the entire judicial selection process in Connecticut is deeply flawed. For now this much is clear: while there are no winners in all of this, the loss is clear: the integrity and reputation of our high court.
Hi ConnConn, Justice Borden had an obligation to inform us. The canon of ethics requires that judges report illegal and unethical conduct by judges. Attorneys have a similar obligation. In this case, the legislature and, in particular, the judiciary committee was the victim and he had an obligation, on behalf of the members of the supreme court, to notify us. The justices debated whether they should all sign the letter or whether he should sign it on behalf of the Court. The later course was chosen.
latter
Rep. Lawlor: First of all, thanks for taking the time to answer these questions. I think this is great.
Back to Justice Borden’s actions, I was under the impression that the Judicial Review Council is the SOLE place for complaints against judges, thereby making Justice Borden’s actions inappropriate. If not the sole forum, then why are complaints filed with the JRC PRIVATE until substantiated by the JRC?
Here you go:
State Constitution: ARTICLE XI.
Article fifth of the constitution is amended by adding a new section to read as follows:
SEC. 7. In addition to removal by impeachment and removal by the governor on the address of two-thirds of each house of the general assembly, judges of all courts, except those courts to which judges are elected, may, in such manner as shall by law be prescribed, be removed or suspended by the supreme court. The general assembly may establish a judicial review council which may also, in such manner as shall by law be prescribed, censure any such judge or suspend any such judge for a definite period not longer than one year.
Adopted November 24, 1976.
State Statute: Sec. 51-51i. Grounds for removal, suspension and censure. (a) In addition to removal by impeachment and removal by the Governor on the address of two-thirds of each house of the General Assembly as provided in the Connecticut Constitution, a judge shall be subject, in the manner and under the procedures provided in this chapter to censure, suspension or removal from office for (1) conduct prejudicial to the impartial and effective administration of justice which brings the judicial office in disrepute, (2) wilful violation of section 51-39a or any canon of judicial ethics, (3) wilful and persistent failure to perform the duty of a judge, (4) neglectful or incompetent performance of the duties of a judge, (5) final conviction of a felony or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, (6) disbarment or suspension as an attorney-at-law, (7) wilful failure to file a financial statement or the filing of a fraudulent financial statement required under section 51-46a, or (8) temperament which adversely affects the orderly carriage of justice.
(b) In addition to removal by the Governor for cause pursuant to subsection (f) of section 46b-231, a family support magistrate shall be subject, in the manner and under the procedures provided in this chapter to censure, suspension or removal from office for (1) conduct prejudicial to the impartial and effective administration of justice which brings the magisterial office in disrepute, (2) wilful violation of section 51-39a or any canon of judicial ethics, (3) wilful and persistent failure to perform the duty of a magistrate, (4) neglectful or incompetent performance of the duties of a magistrate, (5) final conviction of a felony or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, (6) disbarment or suspension as an attorney-at-law, (7) wilful failure to file a financial statement or the filing of a fraudulent financial statement required under section 51-46a, or (8) temperament which adversely affects the orderly carriage of justice.
(c) In addition to removal by the Governor for cause pursuant to subsection (e) of section 31-276, a compensation commissioner shall be subject, in the manner and under procedures provided in this chapter to censure, suspension or removal from office for (1) conduct prejudicial to the impartial and effective administration of the duties of a compensation commissioner which brings the office of compensation commissioner in disrepute, (2) wilful violation of any provision of the code of ethics for workers’ compensation commissioners, (3) wilful and persistent failure to perform the duty of a compensation commissioner, (4) neglectful or incompetent performance of the duties of a compensation commissioner, (5) final conviction of a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, (6) disbarment or suspension as an attorney-at-law, or (7) temperament which adversely affects the orderly carriage of the duties of a compensation commissioner.
Rep Lawlor: Thanks. May I ask one more question (actually, two)? I’ve also blogged about our criminal justice system, specifically the state’s attorney system. It seems to me that the office of the chief state’s attorney is powerless to control statewide prosecution — indeed CSA Kane has said as much — leaving the state’s attorneys with a tremendous amount of autonomy and power. Do you think the powers of the CSA should be beefed up? Also, do you support either granting subpoena powers to state prosecutors or the use of grand juries in our state criminal system?
I would also like to thank Rep Lawlor for taking time out to answer some complicated questions. But think I am confused about this. I looked back on Justice Sullivan’s testimony and I though he said he put the hold on the case so ” nobody would have to answer questions about a decision he wrote as the author and Chief Justice” I don’t remember reading or hearing anywhere that he said he put the hold on the help a friend. I thought by his testimony he said ” I would do for anyone of you” Unless I miss read what Justice Sullivan said at the JRC and judicial hearings ? I don’t remember reading that all Justices wanted to sign Borden’s letter. I thought I read 3-3. I could be wrong. This is in response to connon blog.
Sure, of course. First, I do support the current investigative subpoena proposal. I had opposed the earliest proposals. This goes back more that ten years. However, I had then explained what concerns I had, as did other legislators. The prosecutors made a number of modifications which addressed my concerns. So, now I support it. Regarding the State’s Attorneys versus the Chief States Attorney, I agree that statewide standards, training, oversight and accounatibility are all good things. There is a longstanding [and by that I mean more than 300 years of Connecticut history] tradition of autonomy for local state’s attorneys.
check this out:
http://www.ct.gov/csao/cwp/view.asp?a=1795&q=285524
I have had discussions with the current and previous Chief State’s Attorney about how to ensure statewide goals, and I think it is possible to move in that direction while still respecting our tradition. Keep in mind that other state’s typically elect their prosecutors. There are advantages to that system, but those are greatly outweighed by the disadvantages, in my opinion. It is also worth noting that most other states also elect judges and police chiefs [county sheriffs]. I dont think we should head in that direction. You can imagine what the perception would be if our law enforcement folks were raising money from lawyers, etc. who did business before the court.
Thanks for that thorough response! I’ve lived in places where the prosecutors are elected and I agree with you that there are definitely advantages to that system. Which, brings me to my concern which is that our state prosecutorial system is incredibly incestuous. That is to say, the only people who become SA’s are those who have come from within the system. Is that really a good system? I’ve been reading in the NY Times about the Albany (NY) District Attorney, who has been doing some innovative things. He graduated from law school in 1999 (!). If he were in CT, because of his youth and relative inexperience he would stand zero chance of becoming a SA. Yet, he is being praised on a national basis for his efforts! Doesn’t our prosecutorial system preclude this sort of meteoric rise? (BTW, in NY, unlike CT, prosecutors aren’t in unions.)
Rep. Lawlor: You are a victim of your own success! That is to say, I have so enjoyed your responses that I would like to pose another question. Judge Bryant was recently reappointed unanimously for another eight years on the state bench. This, despite the fact that the CT Bar Assoc and American Bar Association rated her unqualified for the federal bench. (I realize that the ABA just changed its position, but there was still a portion of the new ABA panel that found her unqualified.) Do you think that reappointing judges with these sorts of negative ratings undermines our state judicial system?
Mr. Lawlor says:Keep in mind that other state’s typically elect their prosecutors. and that’s a half truth. If the state prosecutors are to be given the power of subpoena then the whole organization needs to be changed. Right now they are unaccountable to the public.
PS to conconn: a criminal defense attorney did apply to the CJC for the job of Chief States atty that Kane got recently but he was shot down. He had some innovative ideas too!!
connconn, Here is the problem with the ABA rating system: it is, or was, totally anonymous and, apparently, without any evidence, at least none that was made available to us or to the public. Our committee recieved no contact from anyone in opposition to her nomination or suppyling any information or evidence of improper or incompetent or inappropriate conduct on the bench. So, Im not exactly sure why I or anyone else would oppose her nomination. It is worth noting that we received a great deal of contact supporting her nomination. The ABA process came under a great deal of criticism, by the way. You would think lawyers, of all people, would believe in due process and would understand the value of actual evidence in making decisions. For that reason, apparently, they reversed their decision and now rate her as qualified for a Federal Judgeship.
Toucan, the accountability issue is a valid one. I agree. For example, one of the reasons I think our state’s prosecutors were missing in action during the various anti corruption investigations in the recent past: Sheriffs, Governor, Treasurer, Senator, Mayor, and now, apparently Bail Bondsmen, is because there is no incentive to take on powerful people. Im not sure electing them is the best solution.
Rep. Lawlor: With great respect, I believe you are in full support of “whistleblower” laws that PROTECT the anonymity of those who complain of conduct. Why, then, does it surprise you that lawyers who must appear in front of Judge Bryant would want to remain anonymous?
sure, but here there were no specifics, anonymous or otherwise. Plus, I have always honored the confidentiality of information given to me in confidence. People frequently take advantage of that. No one contacted me with anything specific to go on. And the ABA rating had no specifics. So, as far as Im concernced, there is nothing to them.
Mr Lawlor: I wasn’t specifically advocating elected state prosecutors. However, I do beleive that they MUST answer to an elected official in the executive branch with oversight form the legislature. Whether they report to the guv, the AG or an elected prosecutor is up for debate but the current setup doesn’t work and that should be obvious to anyone but I know the general public that rarely comes up against the CJ system dosn’t see this as an issue but I do.
As for the change in the ABA rating on Bryant it had to do with a change in the makeup of the raters and I know nothing about her to be clear.
I really do want to thank you for the time to respond to readers. I guess I am just surprised that someone like Judge Bryant is reappointed unanimously while the judge from Canton (?) received a few “no” votes.
BTW, on my blog I wrote about the fact that Sen LeBeau was the lone “no” vote on Judge Rogers’ appointment to the Appellate Court. Yet, I could not find any public comments on the reason for his vote. Do you know if he commented publicly on his “no” vote? I assume he will vote “no” on her nomination for CJ…..
Toucan: Great points on the prosecutorial system. I tend to agree with you. FTR, I think it makes little sense to have an elected AG. The AG, after all, is the lawyer for the government.
conncon: the AG is the lawyer for the executive branch – and not the quenn herself – to be sure and often our AG forgets that. If you check his web he says he’s the lwayer for the people. A similar problem exists with CT prosecutors who mostly see themselves as attorneys for the victim instead of attorneys for the people. All this tuff is very subtle but it goes to the many many problems we have in CT today. As for who gets elected I do tend to agree with you but I would rather see the reporting structure fixed first in the land of steady habits.;;;;I have to find another link on this tuff to but I’ll be back.
Here ya go conncon: I just think you have to go one step at a time:
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=187648
Connconn, you misread the Senate Vote tally. Sen. Gunther was the only no vote in the senate, Rep. Rowe was the only no vote in the House. Gunther retired, so he wont be voting this year.
Rep Lawlor: Thanks for making me aware of the mistake! I’ve noted the error on the blog. Do we know why Sen. Gunther voted against the nomination?
yeah, Gunther typically voted against all judges.
…ep lawlor this is very interrestinga nd thank-you for your time…however, are you saying that what sullivan did was in fact illegal? i was under the assumption that what he did was unehtical? could he have been arrested if it was arrested? and conncon that was a very interesting question but i havent seen a response?
one more question rep lawlor if i mat: there has been a transparency crisi in our judicial dept, however, the fourth estate (media) is protected by law to keep their sources anonymous!!! isnt this very hypocritical and dangerous and fly in face of openness???
thanks for your time
…sorry for the typos
Hi, Fresh,
Well, there are many things that are illegal, i.e. against the law, which are not crimes. For example, you cant put an addition on your house without a building permit and, perhaps, zoning permission. Thats illegal. But, thats not a crime. It is also illegal for a public agency to have a meeting without posting a notice of that meeting, but it is not a crime. So, what Justice Sullivan did was illegal, no question about that.
Regarding journalists. There is a big difference between the government and the private sector. Governments should be transparent, with some exceptions, like national security, criminal investigations, medical records, etc. Newspapers, TV stations and the like are no different from bakeries or charitable foundations or a multi national corporation. The are privately owned business and the general public does not have an absolute right to know everything they do. Regarding protections for journalists sources, you are correct, there are some protections. But, as you might also recall, journalists do end up in jail for refusing to reveal their sources. In the recent Scooter Libby affair, several journalists we sent to jail for refusing to testify. Others, like Tim Russert, agreed to testify and did reveal confidential sources and information. There are some guidelines about when the government can and cannot force journalists to testify. Last year, the Connecticut legislature wrote those into our state’s law, and that law is summarized below. As you can see, it is in fact possible to force a journalist to testify.
AN ACT CONCERNING FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
SUMMARY: With some exceptions, this act prohibits judicial, executive, and legislative bodies with the power to issue subpoenas or compulsory process from compelling the news media to testify about, produce, or disclose (1) information obtained or received, whether in confidence or not, in gathering, receiving, or processing information for potential communication to the public; (2) the identity of the information’s source; or (3) information tending to identify the source.
The exception is for information (1) necessary to a pending criminal investigation or prosecution or a civil action; (2) not otherwise available; and (3) of interest to the public.
The act also provides that it cannot be construed to deny or infringe an accused’s U. S. and state constitutional rights, in a criminal prosecution, to use subpoenas to obtain witnesses in his behalf.
The act makes information and the identity of a source obtained in violation of the act inadmissible in any action, proceeding, or hearing before a judicial, executive, or legislative body.
The act also requires any person or entity seeking information that is not protected from disclosure to pay the news media’s actual copying costs in providing the information and prohibits using subpoenas to avoid paying.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2006
full summary:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/sum/2006SUM00140-R03HB-05212-SUM.htm
I would again like to stress it was never said what chief justice sullivan did was illegal. That is subjective and the only time I ever heard that was on this blog from Rep. Lawlor. He broke cannon’s which are ethical in nature. Many people would say he definately did not do anything illegal. Justice Sullivan did not break a rule, statue or law accourd. He did not break the law accourding to the 2 hearings I listened to. What law did he break? I might be missing something? Rep Lawlor explination is subjective at best. Thank you for your time.
To say ” let the light shine in” with respect the the judicial department and then say it is ok for journalist to keep thier sources secret is unfair and non-sense. It makes absolutely no sense. It sounds like lets let the light shine in on things we want it to and lets keep things shrouded in secrecy that fit a agends. It is wrong. Period. If a reporter wants to print a story with sources those sources should have to named. That simple. I believe the US Supreme Count is hearing a case shortly on this very topic. I hope they apply simple common sense to this case.
DPSULL, The Canons of Judicial Ethics are the law. Judges must, by law, abide by them. If they violate them, they will be punished by the Government. In this case, punished by the JRC. Under the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution, the government cannot deprive someone of life liberty or property without due process of law. The JRC imposed such a penalty on Justice Sullivan [15 day suspension is a property right] because he broke a law, the judicial canon of ethics. The Connecticut General Statutes incorporate the Canons by reference, and I quoted from that portion above. He broke the law, he received a penalty. End of story.
I agree if a judge violates a cannon they will be punished. He recieved a penalty but there was no law broken here. From the testimony of both the JRC and judicial committee he broke 2 cannons. This is subjective so it is not the end of story. I disagree and that is my right. Your explination is subjective. That is my option. He did not break the law. I never said he did not recieve a punishment that was never in question. Please respect my right to disagree. My research show the code of judicial ethics are adopted by each state. They are guidlines for Judges to follow. I furthur researched this topic and I think the code was revised to say a judge cannot be found guilty of breaking a cannon if no rule exists.
Exactly. He was found guilty. He did break a rule [canon]. The law requires that judges abide by the canon of ethics. Violation of the canons of ethics by judges is, in fact, against the law. And, hence, they are subject to punishment if they violate the rule. You are certainly free to not agree, but it is the law.
Former Chief Justice Sullivan did not break a rule. That is fact. Chief Justice Sullivan broke 2 cannon’s. A cannon is not a rule. This is not my opinion this is in print put out by the JRC. There is no rule that permits a judge from putting a hold on case. Or at least that is what the testimony of everybody at the JRC hearing I watched. Again I did not see everything. But I did read what the JRC put out. That is atleast what is in the code of judicial ethics that was recentely revised by the ABA. I do appreciate your taking the time to answer these questions. I could only hope more legislatures would take the time to do this. I am learning a great deal about the thought process and about state goverment. Will there be future blogs regarding other matter in the judiciary?
…im now very confused…so, sullivan engaged in illegal activity…i must say ive never heard taht before…now, engaging in illegal activity means he could have been arrested? so, when arguing this poiint with other law buff, i could now use the argument that the judiciary co-chairman said that the former chief jsutice engaged in illegal activity?
“SUMMARY: With some exceptions, this act prohibits judicial, executive, and legislative bodies with the power to issue subpoenas or compulsory process from compelling the news media to testify about, produce, or disclose (1) information obtained or received, whether in confidence or not, in gathering, receiving, or processing information for potential communication to the public; (2) the identity of the information’s source; or (3) information tending to identify the source.’
…pretty much gives the media the power to be secret…and all the brouhaha over subpeoning a judge and here, passed by the legislature, this law prohibits the three branches of govet from issuing subpeonas to the media…so in effect, a journalist has more power to run free than a judge…im starting to see a very hypocritical picture eminating from the judiciary committee…
Again how could any committee talk about judicial openness and then turn around and say the media is exempt from printing thier sources. Mind boggling. I would think that there has to be some consistency. At least as a citizen you would expect fairness.
At the end of the day being a devout Conservative Catholic really did Sullivan in. Maybe being much more liberial and attending different religious services would have saved him from this entire affair. This is not a radical view its a dose of reality. After looking back over the past year, just look at those who have taken the lead in this “political assination” of Justice Sullivan and judge for yourself. The Courant recently commented that that Borden should have been CJ not Sullivan due to his intellect. If what we have seen is intellect, then we are in more trouble than I could ever have imagined. Sounds to me like payback for a Waterbury bar owners son out doing a Hartford blue blood. This situation reminds me of a story in the bible where one man betrayed another but, as least that person had the common decency to do the right thing.
You must log in to post a comment.