Reporter Mark Pazniokas of the CT Mirror reports as follows:
"A noisy path to reconfirmation for Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers reached its end with a 139-6 House vote Wednesday, but not before a Latina legislator accused Rogers of slighting the Supreme Court's first and only Latina justice.
Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, D-Hartford, voted against Rogers' confirmation to a second eight-year term as chief justice of Connecticut's highest court, citing an opinion in which the majority accused the dissenting Justice Carmen Espinosa of dishonoring the court.
“A chief justice should not condone or support such an attack,” Gonzalez said during a brief debate in the House. “She should exercise moral leadership.”
Gonzalez choosing to make an issue of intemperate language struck some in the House as odd, given that Gonzalez' insults of a Republican colleague recently prompted a newspaper's call for her censure and the GOP minority's demand for an apology..."
For more information on this matter, please click on the link below:
Wait a minute...am I missing something here? While I understand and support the groundswell of scrutiny and calls for the Legislature NOT to re-up Chase Rogers...are we left to believe that Rep Gonzalez has stepped out of her skin of support of the MANY issues enumerated in this and other blogs and forums re the corruption of Family and Probate Courts, in deference to but angst over treatment of a fellow Latino...Judge? Is this the sum and substance of the squabbles? Forgive me...I thought Rep Gonzalez was after Bigger Fish...namely rooting out and correcting the scum of corruption in the two 'lawless courts' of the State...Family and Probate. Am I mistaken here, Ms Sloper?
ReplyDeleteI recall Rep. Gonzalez was critical of the harsh words stated regarding a fellow Latina in a position of authority. It does seem that it is acceptable to express a dissenting opinion, but not if you are a Latina, and I believe this was what Rep. Gonzalez was objecting to. Rep. Gonzalez also criticized Judge Rogers for not responding to a letter of inquiry she sent to Judge Rogers asking about the abuse of family court litigants. I believe that Rep. Gonzalez felt that she was owed the courtesy of a response. I don't know if I answered your question, but this is sum total of where Rep. Gonzalez commented on a fellow Latina. But the primary issue was that Rep. Rebimbas was simply out of line in singling out a family court litigant by name and attempting to undercut her credibility and general misrepresenting what has been going on in the Court system. I consider the so called coverage of reporters in this matter a complete violation of their journalistic ethics to tell the news as it is rather than acting as the mouth piece of the corrupt majority.
ReplyDeleteThe way this entire Chase Rogers re-confirmation controversy was portrayed by the press reads as if the entire set of issues was centered solely around hissy-fits and ego sideswipes between political parties. Completely ignoring the scrutiny of Roger's performance as Chief Judge, particularly her inability to maintain a law abiding, uncorruptable Judiciary. Witness that buried in the CT Mirror article a passing reference to a Representative that voted against Rogers based on the very credible claims amongst his constituents of the crookedness experienced in the Family Courts. It would serve the public better if some responsible reporter had interviewed and reported, in-depth, the facts and reasoning behind all six of the minority dissenters positions.
ReplyDelete