by Ryan McKeen
1. The Supreme Court got it right. The statute requires 10 years active practice at the bar of the state of Connecticut. Ms. Bysiewicz was not engaged in the active practice of law for 10 years at the bar. Ms. Bysiewicz did important work for the citizens of Connecticut during her tenure as Secretary of the State. However, it wasn’t the practice of law.
2. Ms. Bysiewicz did the citizens of Connecticut a favor by bringing a declaratory action this winter. She did not have to do this. It’s likely she would have won in an election. Her poll numbers were good and she had money in the bank. Had she won, she certainly would have faced an action to remove her from office. This would be a horrible result. Ms. Bysiewicz should be commended for putting her chips on the table and bringing her case.
3. Yesterday’s decision was a victory for the rule of law. I’ve been quoted before as saying the statute is stupid. For example, a person could actively practice law for 10 years then leave the practice and become a drummer in a rock band for the next 25 years and during such time never so much think about law. That person could then wake up one day and decide to run for attorney general and be qualified under the statute. Of course in the intervening 25 years the practice of law would have changed so significantly that the drummer wouldn’t recognize the practice at all. But statutorily it wouldn’t matter because all the statute requires is 10 years active practice at the bar.
I say this because it doesn’t matter that the law is stupid…it’s the law. If the legislature doesn’t like the law, it is the legislature’s job to change the law – not the courts. Yesterday, the Connecticut Supreme Court did it’s job.
4. It is important that the Court’s ruling was unanimous. A fractured opinion by the Court would have called into question the validity of its ruling in the eyes of the public (e.g. Bush v. Gore). A 7-0 ruling leaves no doubt that the opinion was a legal and not a political ruling. In my mind, this should be seen by the public as proof that Connecticut has a world class judicial system.
5. The Bysiewicz case is an example that our collective faith in the system is more important than our differences. Ms. Bysiewicz took a position and the republicans took another position. And the parties to the action fought vigorously for their positions. But they did so in court and not on the streets. What we take for granted in this country is the exception in many parts of the world where such conflicts result in violence. Not everyone will be happy with the Court’s ruling but as a state we’ll accept it and move on.
6. I’ve seen people sent to jail before. No matter how many times I’ve seen it, it’s always shocking when it happens. Before the judge hands down her ruling there’s always a moment of suspense and then wham a decision gets handed down. It’s sudden and it’s final. Marshal’s then surround the man and escort him out of the court in handcuffs.
There’s usually no such drama on the civil side of things. Opinions are often sent through the mail. The litigants rarely ever hear decisions from the bench.
Yesterday when the Supreme Court made it’s ruling from the bench. It was akin to watching the Court send a person to jail. There was a collective gasp in the courtroom when the court found Ms. Bysiewicz ineligible to run. It seemed everyone in the courtroom was stunned. The ruling had the air of finality similar to what one sees when a man is ordered to jail.