Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Mar 05, 2004 12:07 AM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Mar 05, 2004 12:07 AM
HERE COMES THE JUDGE
WHAT WILL LAWMAKERS
DO?
HELP
WANTED
A few of you folks have been letting me have it for not updating the blog as frequently as you would like. If anybody would like to help me out, I'm open for guest bloggers. Send me some of your stuff and I'll be more than happy to put your political thoughts up for all the world to see.
THE JUDGE AND THE VOTE
I'm going to be keeping my eye on how the House and Senate vote on whether to confirm James K. Robertson to the Superior Court bench. Robertson as most know was Governor Rowland's longtime personal lawyer. Robertson and his law firm are still owed over 125 thousand dollars for legal work done for Rowland. But at the same time Robertson's former law firm Carmody & Torrance, was receiving millions in fees for state legal work, close to six million dollars in fact.
Last week in a near unanimous decision the Judiciary Committee citing a "loophole" affirmed Robertson's judgeship (Robertson is already serving on the bench, but his appointment by Rowland has to be approved by the legislature) According to committee members current ethics laws allowed public officials to accept free services from people doing business with the State. Apparently some believe the loophole is the distinction between services and gifts. Nonetheless, the matter of Robertson's confirmation is headed to the entire legislature for a vote. I believe the result of that vote will give a clear signal on how an impeachment vote on the guv may go down. Here's my thinking: Loophole or not, if the Judiciary committee and the entire legislative body can't take a stand and say no to a judge who has provided over a hundred thousand dollars in free legal work and then his law firm is awarded (rewarded) millions of dollars in state contracts; then don't expect them to vote yes to impeach the governor for accepting a hot tub and kitchen cabinets.
If lawmakers are as outraged as they say they are about the Governor's pattern of ethical lapses, they should use the Robertson appointment as proof. If they were the least bit serious the judiciary committee should have said no to Robertson. But since they didn't then the General Assembly should vote Robertson's appointment down. And despite new questions coming out of the ethics office that this so-called loophole may not have existed in the first place, I say the Democratic majority will ultimately confirm Robertson, offering up a bunch of political excuses why their hands are tied and they had no choice but to vote yes on Robertson. But they do have a choice. And if they can't say no to Roberston's appointment, it will be very hard to justify voting Rowland out of office.
CT JOE IS BACK
After taking last week off to go on vacation, Senator Joe Lieberman is back at work. He'll be in CT on Monday making the rounds at....surprise, surprise....local diners. It will be interesting to see if he has the same passion for his US Senate job as he had before his White House run.
A few of you folks have been letting me have it for not updating the blog as frequently as you would like. If anybody would like to help me out, I'm open for guest bloggers. Send me some of your stuff and I'll be more than happy to put your political thoughts up for all the world to see.
THE JUDGE AND THE VOTE
I'm going to be keeping my eye on how the House and Senate vote on whether to confirm James K. Robertson to the Superior Court bench. Robertson as most know was Governor Rowland's longtime personal lawyer. Robertson and his law firm are still owed over 125 thousand dollars for legal work done for Rowland. But at the same time Robertson's former law firm Carmody & Torrance, was receiving millions in fees for state legal work, close to six million dollars in fact.
Last week in a near unanimous decision the Judiciary Committee citing a "loophole" affirmed Robertson's judgeship (Robertson is already serving on the bench, but his appointment by Rowland has to be approved by the legislature) According to committee members current ethics laws allowed public officials to accept free services from people doing business with the State. Apparently some believe the loophole is the distinction between services and gifts. Nonetheless, the matter of Robertson's confirmation is headed to the entire legislature for a vote. I believe the result of that vote will give a clear signal on how an impeachment vote on the guv may go down. Here's my thinking: Loophole or not, if the Judiciary committee and the entire legislative body can't take a stand and say no to a judge who has provided over a hundred thousand dollars in free legal work and then his law firm is awarded (rewarded) millions of dollars in state contracts; then don't expect them to vote yes to impeach the governor for accepting a hot tub and kitchen cabinets.
If lawmakers are as outraged as they say they are about the Governor's pattern of ethical lapses, they should use the Robertson appointment as proof. If they were the least bit serious the judiciary committee should have said no to Robertson. But since they didn't then the General Assembly should vote Robertson's appointment down. And despite new questions coming out of the ethics office that this so-called loophole may not have existed in the first place, I say the Democratic majority will ultimately confirm Robertson, offering up a bunch of political excuses why their hands are tied and they had no choice but to vote yes on Robertson. But they do have a choice. And if they can't say no to Roberston's appointment, it will be very hard to justify voting Rowland out of office.
CT JOE IS BACK
After taking last week off to go on vacation, Senator Joe Lieberman is back at work. He'll be in CT on Monday making the rounds at....surprise, surprise....local diners. It will be interesting to see if he has the same passion for his US Senate job as he had before his White House run.
Posted: Sat - February 21, 2004 at 01:27 AM