Bysiewicz rumormill hot

By ConnPolitics.tv Staff on Feb 17, 2010 | In News, Atty. General, Sec'y of the State, Vote 2010 | 14 feedbacks »

Hartford, Conn. (WTNH) – Rumors are flying at the State Capitol that Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz will pull out of the race for Attorney General tomorrow.

Her campaign will make no comment, but there is also speculation that she will announce that she is going to take the matter of who is qualified to be Attorney General to court.

Bysiewicz told Chief Political Correspondent Mark Davis a week ago that she was considering her options. Democratic State Party Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo has also said she is considering taking the matter to court.

There seems to be no legal definition of what constitutes ‘ten years of active practice’ as a lawyer in this state. State statute requires the Attorney General to have ten years of active practice at the bar. Bysiewicz contends that her eleven years as Secretary of the State should count, even though being a lawyer is not required.

Comment from: Hosed by the system [Visitor]
"" There seems to be no legal definition of what constitutes ‘ten years of active practice’ as a lawyer in this state....""


seems pretty damn "clear" to me....

10 years of "active" practice means just that.............PRACTICING LAW....

but, of course, this will be a friggin circus........
02/17/10 @ 15:22
Comment from: disgusted [Visitor]
Of course, this will all be done on the taxpayer's dime - it's not as if she'd spend her own money on a frivolous lawsuit
02/17/10 @ 16:06
Comment from: joe [Visitor]
What do qualifications have to do with being an elected official. All that is needed is money.
02/17/10 @ 16:12
Comment from: joe [Visitor]
What do qualifications have to do with being an elected official. All that is needed is money.
02/17/10 @ 16:12
Comment from: Winnebago Warrior [Visitor]
Lawyers should not be law makers.
02/17/10 @ 16:18
Comment from: Dempsey Dem [Visitor]
When was the last time a member of the Supreme Ct (US) stand before a judge? Actually Active duty is not required of the Supreme Court. The head of a law firm who manages his staff attorneys shouldn't be disqualified any more than the SOTS who managed both an election division staf and business staff of attorneys.
02/17/10 @ 16:26
Comment from: indy [Visitor]
LOL! What!!!
02/17/10 @ 18:01
Comment from: Conservative [Visitor]
This is another sick joke at the taxpayers expense. we will remember this if she wins. and not vote for her!
02/17/10 @ 18:41
Comment from: Pat [Visitor]
This is BUSH'S fault!
02/17/10 @ 18:42
Comment from: JF [Visitor]
This should pave the way for the GOP to run their first choice candidate Ross Garber
02/17/10 @ 18:44
Comment from: THE TRUTH [Visitor]
It depends what the meaning of "is" is. Typical democrat.
02/18/10 @ 07:23
Comment from: Tired of the same old politics [Visitor]
She should just go away......she can't make up her mind on what she wants to do so it's time to try the private sector and see what life is really like!
02/18/10 @ 12:23
Comment from: Laurie [Visitor]
No I don't think Susan Bysiewicz should withdraw
02/18/10 @ 12:28
Comment from: eatsleepct [Visitor]
She was practicing. She just didn't get any good at it.
02/18/10 @ 20:45

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be revealed on this site.

Your URL will be displayed.
PoorExcellent
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Name, email & website)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will not be revealed.)
« Bysiewicz to announce AG eligibilityFederal deficit at $430.69B »