Comments on: A Few Thoughts and An Invitation To Susan Bysiewicz

By: Christine Chinni

Christine Chinni — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:11:08 +0000

Ryan, You have handled this whole matter appropriately, professionally, and with class.

Chris

By: Is the Attorney General statute unconstitutional? | a public defender

Is the Attorney General statute unconstitutional? | a public defender — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 04:30:19 +0000

[...] she had 10 years’ active practice, which then boiled down to a question of what “active practice” [...]

By: Gideon

Gideon — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:06:29 +0000

The point, which you hit upon, is that these words aren’t defined anywhere, meaning they’re open to interpretation. It’s going to take someone filing a suit to bar her from running to get a court to explore what they mean. Let’s look at basic statutory interpretation: is the statute unambiguous? Clearly, no.

So let’s look at it in context of other statutes and an eye to the legislative history. Therein lies the answer, I think. If the legislative history is silent, then I think a court will have a very difficult time.

Active practice could just as easily mean someone not suspended, retired, disbarred, etc. As long as you’re licensed as an attorney, you’re good to go. They could have said “actively practicing”.

If you look at attorneys’ statuses on the judicial website, for the vast majority, it lists them as “active”.

By: Gideon

Gideon — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:01:20 +0000

Both of you need to cut it out. The thought is horrifying.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:34:41 +0000

I’ve long thought that Gideon is Jodi Rell’s conscience and A Public Defender is a medium that provides her an outlet to atone for her policies. Frequently, I imagine Governor Rell writing posts for A Public Defender from the Governor’s Mansion.

By: gerardw

gerardw — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:56:32 +0000

(Followed the link from Gideon’s site). This blog is well written and well thought out and quite responsible.

But I am surprised — I really thought Gideon was Jodi Rell.

By: Jen

Jen — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 21:20:08 +0000

Hmmm – Joe Lieberman’s bio states that he was a name partner in a law firm (Lieberman, Segaloff and Wolfson) from 1972 to 1983. So, I think that, like many, he continued to work in private practice while in the legislature? The legislature is intended to be part time. I don’t believe Susan was in private practice while serving in the legislature. Clearly, you don’t need to be a lawyer to serve as Secretary of State, and I don’t think the mere fact that you hold a law degree suddenly turns it into “the active practice of law at the bar.” Those words are very different from “member in good standing” or “hold a license”, which are passive. Different words have to be given different meaning so to have “ten years active practice at the bar” has to mean something different, something more.

By: MissConduct

MissConduct — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:42:45 +0000

She has now asked Blumenthal for an opinion.

By: MissConduct

MissConduct — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:05:41 +0000

Talk about shooting the messenger! I’ve been following this story since you posted it, for several reasons:

a. I had no idea the AG position required 10+ years of active practice. Now I know.

b. Now that I think of it, it makes a great deal of sense to have that requirement. From now on, I will consider that when deciding how to cast my vote. Thank you for the info.

c. Your post is serving an important educational purpose. Now that it is being picked up, more voters will be aware of this issue, and will be more informed as a result.

In the end, it may not matter to the campaign. Before this, I would have been happy to cast my vote for her as either Gov. or AG. In fact, I very well may still vote for her. But criticizing a blogger for essentially doing us all a good service is plainly pathetic. He never said she wasn’t qualified — he simply pointed out a requirement and asked whether her background fulfilled it.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:43:36 +0000

My question wasn’t hostile.