Dems contemplate Bysiewicz court action
Posted by ConnPolitics.tv Staff on February 9th, 2010
Hartford (WTNH) – Connecticut State Democratic Party Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo is huddling with the party’s legal cousel this afternoon to determine if she can take the matter of Susan Bysiewicz’s qualifications before a judge.
Bysiewicz told News Channel 8 Chief Political Correspondent Mark Davis that she is also weighing her options.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal issued an opinion a week ago saying that the definition of ‘ten years active practice’ would have to be determined by a judge. Bysiewicz, a candidate for Attorney General, continues to insist that her years as Secretary of the State qualify as ‘active practice.’
Some have suggested that Bysiewicz and DiNardo are the only ones with ‘legal standing’ to bring the matter to the court.
Chief Political Correspondent Mark Davis will have much more on the Bysiewicz dilemma coming up tonight.
8 comments
They're above the petty rule following thing....
The situation is clear. No one except the courts can decide what the definition of "Active Practice" is for this state.
Bysiewicz's ability to qualify for the job hinders on such a decision.
The reason is, there is no legal precedent in CT for defining "active practice." Other states' judicial systems have however, and might influence the opinion of a presiding court.
Some of these other states have stated that a position as an agency head within the state government that dispenses legal advice is included within their definition.
The fact of the matter is this. At the end of the day, the court needs to define "active practice."
It is clear that Sec. Bysiewicz could very well fit the definition, she may not...
...but this CERTAINLY IS NOT A CASE of "THE RULES ARE THE RULES"
I hope more diligent investigative minds choose to join the conversation.
If Blumenthal can't read, "10 years", I can't vote for him in any position.
And I don't care what the courts say (one judge).
As for whether or not I am "bloviating," I would have to argue that the vast majority of comment posts on this website would fall into that category.
I just do it a little better.
This is a wee bit presumptive, but I also imagine that you [user: disgusted] likely believe me to have my mind made up about Sec. Bysiewicz candidacy. I have not.
I only look to expand the discussion to include as many of the facts that are relevant as possible.
I invite any and all information that might discredit what I state, and look forward to more valuable discussions in the future.
Comment feed for this postLeave a comment
| « Chairwoman explores Bysiewicz campaign | Obama pleads for bipartisanship » |
