by Ryan McKeen
UPDATE: Judge May Not Rule on Jurisdictional Issues Before Tuesday
Keep in mind that jurisdiction is a threshold issue. No jurisdiction then no case. Parties cannot consent to jurisdiction.
It’s not worth reading anything into Judge Aurigemma not ruling from the bench. In the vast majority of all motions before the superior court a judge takes the case under advisement. Bench rulings are the exception and not the norm. Judges have 4 months from hearing a motion to make a decision.
The merits of this case, if they are ever reached, almost certainly won’t be reached at least at the trial court level until after the election. In the event the court found jurisdiction I can’t imagine this case proceeding any faster than Bysiewicz v. DiNardo given both the amount of discovery that would take place and the legal issues at play. Bysiewicz was filed on February 25th, decided by the trial court on May 5th and ultimately resolved by the Supreme Court on May 18th (roughly 3 months after Bysiewicz initiated the action).
The interesting thing is that two election outcomes could neuter this case. First if Dean wins she’d certainly drop her case. Second, if both Jepsen and Malloy win then in the extremely unlikely event a court would find AG Jepsen unqualified via a quo warranto action after he took office then Malloy would appoint an AG.
This case is an intersection of law and politics.