Judge Downey’s Hearing didn’t go so well today. The Judiciary Committee postponed his appointment so that they could review transcripts from hearings he presided over at the Stamford Superior Court.
Over at CT News Junkie, Christine Stuart has the details:
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 mans U.S. citizenship.
When Downey was questioned by lawmakers about the case, he said he threw out an intellectual bone to challenge, the plaintiffs attorney, Brenden Leyden. He didnt 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 hasnt been raised as an issue by anyone, Leyden replied.
Well, it might be an issue in Judge Downeys court, because I believe that no one has the right to sue in the State of Connecticut court system unless theyre duly authorized to sue, Downey replied.
And in a truly surreal moment.
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.
Well at least now Nutmeggers will know Judge Downey for something more than his feelings about Strom Thurmond.
23 responses so far ↓
AP article: http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/state/hc-21195204.apds.m0144.bc-ct–appeaug21,0,7323865.story?coll=hc-headlines-local-wire
Errr… that link didn’t work.
Let me try again. Here’s the AP article on Downey’s hearing today
Another article with video
Geeky:
Do you have some particular beef with Judge Downey’s appointment? Or is it just – as is the case with Dandy Don and so many of his legislative pals – that it’s a Rell nomination?
Just curious …
[quote comment="17797"]Geeky:
Do you have some particular beef with Judge Downey’s appointment? Or is it just – as is the case with Dandy Don and so many of his legislative pals – that it’s a Rell nomination?
Just curious …[/quote]
I can’t speak for CGG, but I will note that during today’s public hearing, several of Jodi Rell’s nominations testified and were unanimously confirmed and praised by people on both sides of the aisle. If it were an anti-Rell thing, wouldnt people have opposed all of her nominations?
But I think CGG can speak for herself too… I just wanted to point that out
[quote comment="17797"]Geeky:
Do you have some particular beef with Judge Downey’s appointment? Or is it just – as is the case with Dandy Don and so many of his legislative pals – that it’s a Rell nomination?
Just curious …[/quote]
Well, I think the above quotes/CT News Junkie bit pretty clearly lay out the beefs with the Downey nomination.
And I would also venture to say that many, many Rell appointed judges pass through the legislature without any objection from “Dandy Don”, et al.
[quote comment="17797"]Geeky:
Do you have some particular beef with Judge Downey’s appointment? Or is it just – as is the case with Dandy Don and so many of his legislative pals – that it’s a Rell nomination?
Just curious …[/quote]
I don’t really have an opinion. But I know that those who follow the courts do and would want to discuss it here. Sounds like Legislators from both parties have concerns though.
I do think Kissel was right in asking him to stop speaking about himself in the third person though. It creeps me out when people do that. L)
[quote post="870"]Well, I think the above quotes/CT News Junkie bit pretty clearly lay out the beefs with the Downey nomination.
And I would also venture to say that many, many Rell appointed judges pass through the legislature without any objection from âDandy Donâ, et al. [/quote]
Do you indeed?
Do the names Hamilton, Bowman or Poliner ring any bells?
[quote post="870"]I do think Kissel was right in asking him to stop speaking about himself in the third person though. It creeps me out when people do that. L) [/quote]
Yeesh. Agreed.
[quote comment="17805"][quote post="870"]Well, I think the above quotes/CT News Junkie bit pretty clearly lay out the beefs with the Downey nomination.
And I would also venture to say that many, many Rell appointed judges pass through the legislature without any objection from âDandy Donâ, et al. [/quote]
Do you indeed?
Do the names Hamilton, Bowman or Poliner ring any bells?[/quote]
They do. And none of them are judges.
And, in fact, if you want to play that game, most of Rell’s commissioners, etc. get approved unanimously as well.
[quote post="870"]They do. And none of them are judges.
And, in fact, if you want to play that game, most of Rellâs commissioners, etc. get approved unanimously as well. [/quote]
No, they’re not judges. But commissioners, etc. are not unanimously approved – check the votes. And lately all of them have been the recipients of both overt and behind-the-scenes character assassination – especially Hamilton, who nevertheless won overwhelming (but not unanimous) approval.
Donny Boy is still peevish about losing that contest, especially because – in the end – he was humiliated that almost no one would join his crusade against her. Of course, many legislators on both sides of the aisle saw no particular reason to vote against a social worker and attorney who had spent the majority of her career at DCF and had literally “grown up” from being a front-line social worker to a top manager at the agency.
Donny’s never been good about dealing with failure – despite ample practice …
i think it is important for all nominations, no matter what party they are from, be scrutinized. that’s the whole job of our legislature in regards to these nominations! if they weren’t doing that, then they aren’t doing what we put them there for.
[quote comment="17810"]i think it is important for all nominations, no matter what party they are from, be scrutinized. that’s the whole job of our legislature in regards to these nominations! if they weren’t doing that, then they aren’t doing what we put them there for.[/quote]
Agreed, absolutely. The objection is to cheap partisan theatrics, not legitimate legislative inquiry. Contrast Williams’s actions with, say, Lawlor’s comments last week concerning Downey: Night and day.
[quote comment="17811"][quote comment="17810"]i think it is important for all nominations, no matter what party they are from, be scrutinized. that’s the whole job of our legislature in regards to these nominations! if they weren’t doing that, then they aren’t doing what we put them there for.[/quote]
Agreed, absolutely. The objection is to cheap partisan theatrics, not legitimate legislative inquiry. Contrast Williams’s actions with, say, Lawlor’s comments last week concerning Downey: Night and day.[/quote]
so, just so i understand exactly where you are coming from, do you believe that these recent developments with downey are worthy of being examined before voting on his nomination? basically what i am asking is, do you believe this particular inquiry is partisan?
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 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 …
Which brings us to snide posts on CLP about “Nominiations” and even more invective on MLN.
Are we to believe that this “surprise” evidence – which deals with a case from 2002 – was not available before 4 p.m.? Or, to suggest another TV metaphor, is this a little too Perry Mason-esque?
It’s classic political theater. And utterly despicable.
How can you say it’s political theater though? There are loads of cases that judges deal with. Legislators depend on people who dealt with these judges personally to come to them with information. I’d think that it’s very common for people to read something in the media and then realize “Hey, I dealt with that same judge and he also was not acting professional in my case, too.” And then that person might be compelled to come forward with their information…
[quote post="870"]Iâd think that itâs very common for people to read something in the media and then realize âHey, I dealt with that same judge and he also was not acting professional in my case, too.â And then that person might be compelled to come forward with their information⌠[/quote]
Perhaps, perhaps. But Rell nominated Downey at the start of July — it was widely reported in the MSM and in the legal trades — and all this “new information” is somehow coming to light just now? Awfully late in the day for some well-intentioned person or persons to feel compelled to act … but very nicely timed for a little political gamesmanship.
I have no stake in Downey. And absent a confession or sloppy fieldcraft it’s unlikely anyone will prove there’s actual malice in all these dramatic disclosures, however suspicious things may (or may not) appear.
But here’s the point: We ought to be concerned, even righteously pissed off, at the possibility that someone is willing to sh*t all over the “process” for the sake of pettiness or ego.
lamont cranston never talks about lamont cranston in the 3rd person.
[quote comment="17815"]But here’s the point: We ought to be concerned, even righteously pissed off, at the possibility that someone is willing to sh*t all over the “process” for the sake of pettiness or ego.[/quote]
Who is sh*tting all over the process, except for Downey himself??
The ranking Republicans on the panel, Sen. John Kissel of Enfield and Rep. Arthur O’Neill of Southbury, also said they were troubled by the performance of Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s nominee. Kissel asked how a judge could refuse to hear all cases involving illegal immigrants.
“I think this is a huge issue,” Kissel said.
These guys are huge partisan liberals now aren’t they????
http://www.courant.com/news/custom/topnews/hc-downey0822.artaug22,0,7654174.story?coll=hc_tab01_layout
But the committee recessed the hearing after obtaining transcripts of two divorce hearings in May 2002 in which Downey flatly stated that he does not allow illegal immigrants access to civil or family courts. Both cases involved parties with Hispanic names.
“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?” Downey said during a divorce hearing.
He opened another hearing the same day by asking if a Latino man seeking a divorce was a legal resident.
“Yes, he is, your honor,” replied the man’s attorney, Philip Berns.
“All right,” Downey said. “Show me his green card, please.”
Berns asked why that was relevant.
Downey is done!!!!!!!
[quote post="870"]These guys are huge partisan liberals now arenât they????[/quote]
Birdbrain:
What part of So far the committee hearings themselves have appeared bipartisan had you confused?
If you weren’t so busy being the shadow governor, shadow GOP state party chairman, shadow DOT commissioner, shadow DPS commissioner, shadow OPM secretary and shadow attorney general, maybe you’d catch those oh-so-subtle nuances …
I wasn’t talking to you RedFive. I hadn’t even read your comments yesterday as i skipped over them – and I didn’t bother to read them today either except that you addressed me. This is a hobby for me as I have no horse in any race nor would I ever want any of those jobs you mention.
You must log in to post a comment.