Connecticut
Post posts about what is happening in the State of Connecticut.
Has anybody here seen my old friend Roger
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Sat, 01/16/2010 - 10:11Has anybody here seen my old friend Abraham,
Can you tell me where he's gone?
He freed a lotta people, but it seems the good die young
But I just looked around and he's gone.
On Monday, we will pause to remember Martin Luther King, Jr. For many, it will be a Day of Service.
He taught that through nonviolence and service to one another, problems such as hunger and homelessness, prejudice and discrimination can be overcome. Dr. King’s teachings can continue to guide us in addressing our nation’s most pressing needs---poverty, economic insecurity, job loss and education.
The sixties were a turbulent time. There was a war overseas. There were battles at home about what equality means. Amidst the turmoil, there was idealism and a concern for fellow humans.
I was four years old when President Kennedy was assassinated and nine when Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. I have very limited memories of this. Yet yesterday, I spent a little time gaining more perspective on the sixties.
Former Greenwich First Selectman Roger Pearson had considered running against Senator Dodd in a Democratic Primary. I had spoken with him early in the year about the issues that mattered to him in such a race. Then, around June we lost touch with one another. I figured it was mostly because of my busy life. Yet when Sen. Dodd decided not to run for re-election, I fired off an email to Mr. Pearson to ask for his comments. Yesterday, we spoke on the phone.
Mr. Pearson, speaking in a firm and clear but halting voice talked about his experiences. He remembered being in Washington DC when President Kennedy was shot, of visiting the Rotunda at three in the morning, of passing by the White House and seeing Secret Service officers standing with their bloodshot eyes.
We talked about the Great Society, the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. Mr. Pearson spoke about how he had always wanted to be a legislator. He spoke about his support for Congressman Himes and the difficulties Democrats have historically had in the district. Mr. Pearson spoke about the stroke he had recently had, and his recovery.
As I listened to him speak, I thought of StoryCorps. Mr. Pearson’s voice is a voice we need to hear in the upcoming elections. We need a reminder of the ideals we fought for in the sixties and to be reminded that we still should care for our neighbors as we sought to in the sixties.
So perhaps, we need more people going door to door in the coming elections, but these people should not be going door to door to try and swing voters one way or another or simply to encourage them to get out and vote.
No, we need to go to the doors of people like Mr. Pearson, to learn of our past and be inspired to make our society even greater.
Citizen's Election Program Hearing: Restrictions on Contributions - Part 2
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Wed, 01/13/2010 - 20:19(Continued from Citizen's Election Program Hearing: Restrictions on Contributions - Part 1.)
Around ten of twelve, Ira Feinberg began his oral arguments concerning the lobbyist restrictions of the Connecticut Citizen’s Election Program before the Second Circuit. He started off by acknowledging that Citizens United v. FEC, which is currently being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court could have an effect on the ruling, but since that case is primarily about corporate independent expenditures, it is not likely. Nonetheless, the Second Circuit might want briefings from the parties in the CEP case after a ruling is made by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Citizen's Election Program Hearing: Restrictions on Contributions - Part 1
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Wed, 01/13/2010 - 18:22At about 11:24 on Wednesday April 13th, the oral arguments concerning the Citizen's Election Program began in the Second Circuit in New York City. Two different issues were being considered The first was concerning the restrictions on contributions by lobbyists, state contractors and their immediate families.
Citizen's Election Program Hearing: Pre-game
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Wed, 01/13/2010 - 18:13Another morning of rising early to take the train into New York City to hear arguments at the Second Circuit of Appeals. Yesterday was the Doninger case. Today is the Citizen's Election Case. As I walked off the train, I passed a policeman with his German Shepherd watching the passengers disembark. As I headed into the subway, a man behind me gets stopped by police and directed over to a table to have his backpack searched. On the subway platform, there are small gatherings of police officers chatting. Security feels tighter today than it did on Tuesday. Maybe it is because of anticipated extra passengers heading in for matinées.
Yet at the court house, it is the same drill. I called my wife to let her know that I'm heading into the courthouse where I would need to leave my laptop and cellphone and be incommunicado for a few hours. There have been rumors that the Citizen's United ruling might come down from the Supreme Court today and that Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz would be announcing that she will run for Attorney General instead of Governor.
The courtroom was more crowded today than it was yesterday. At ten minutes before ten o'clock, the appointed time for the proceedings to begin, there were already twenty people in the gallery and almost as many up front. While the Doninger case has broad implications for Internet speech, the immediate impact may be felt more narrowly. The Citizen's Election Program decision could have a broad, immediate effect.
Besides lawyers, representatives of the state, the various advocacy organizations, and others with an interest in the case, there were more reporters here today as well. An Asian man who appeared to be here for a different case sat quietly reading his bible. Different people whispered to one another about who was considering running for which seat in the upcoming elections.
At about ten minutes after the hour, the judges entered the court room and called the day calendar. There were no motions to be heard, but there were about five other cases to be heard before the Citizen's Election Program cases.
The first case was of a man arrested, apparently for having a large bag of heroin at his house. He represented himself pro se, claiming that his right of privacy was violated, that there was not an appropriate search warrant, and various other concerns. The attorney representing the state pointed out that all the information necessary was in the court record. The judges reserved judgment.
The second case was also pro se. A woman who had battled non-Hodgkins lymphoma talked about becoming legal blind and her work place not accommodating her condition. The attorney representing the company where she had worked claimed she did not meet the necessary legal criteria for the company to make the accommodations she was requesting. Again, the judges reserved decision.
The following case was one of ineffective council. A man plead guilty to possession five kilograms of cocaine. He entered a plea agreement and worked with investigators for a few years, only to have the state change its tune at the sentencing hearing. There are discussions about how he went through seven different lawyers, and at least one was trying to scam him. The attorney for the state pointed out that the man was given an opportunity to change his plea at an earlier point becomes of some the issues that had been raised, but never did. The lawyer for the man who had plead guilty pointed out that after working with investigators for three years, providing information that could be used against him, that was not a real choice. Judge Hall suggested it was a Hobson's choice, and the lawyer agrees. Again, the judges reserved decision.
With these cases out of the way, A bigger case was heard; Sharon Kaytor and the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission v. Electric Boat. Ms. Kaytor had worked at Electric Boat for thirty three years and had security clearances. She was suing Electric Boat for hostile work environment and retaliation. Initially there were questions here and there such as what shows that the hostile environment was a result of sexual harassment. The attorneys suggested it was the totality of the circumstances including the progression from non-threatening to aggressive to threatening behavior directed to women, as well as sexual innuendos.
There were legal points about the hostility needs to be severe or pervasive to be applicable and an attorney pointed out that you don't get much more severe than death threats. The attorney for Electric Boat argued that there was not a relationship between the sexual innuendo and the hostility. Judge Cabranes made comments about how perhaps just occasional death threats could be non-sexual threatening environment, just your average run of the mill hostile environment. This brought a little laughter from the courtroom. Everyone was starting to warm up for the main event. At ten after eleven and there were around sixty people in the gallery.
Again, the judges reserve decision and some of the people left, including one of the Connecticut reporters, who headed out to speak with parties to the case. One more case remained before the CEP case. It was another ineffective council case with a speedy trial claim thrown in. There were discussions about how this has been dragging on and the issues have evolved over time. An attorney recognized that her client only gets one bite at the apple, but asked to be allowed to make it a full bite. The judges reserved decision and it became time for the main event to begin.
Where does Internet Speech Reside?
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Tue, 01/12/2010 - 20:48Tuesday morning, Judges Kearse, Cabranes and Livingston heard oral arguments at the Second Circuit on the latest developments in the Avery Doninger case. In the spring of 2007, Ms. Doninger wrote a Livejournal post using an unsavory colloquial term meaning jerk to criticize of administration of the high school she was attending and encouraging students to ask their parents to contact the school administration to redress a grievance. As a result, Ms. Doninger was punished, in part by not allowing her to run for re-election as class secretary. This made the local news, and various students rallied to show their support of Ms. Doninger by wearing T-shirts that said “Team Avery” and writing in her name for class secretary. However, the administration did not recognize the results of the election where Ms. Doninger won a plurality of the votes and they prohibited students from wearing the shirts to a school assembly. The crucial issue in this case is where does Internet Speech Reside? Specifically for students writing blogs at home, is this on campus or off campus speech?
