logo
Connecticut's Broken Promise: When Equal Justice Favors Special Interests

Connecticut's Broken Promise: When Equal Justice Favors Special Interests

Yahoo20-05-2025
'Equal justice under law.' These four words are inscribed on the front of the U.S. Supreme Court — a reminder that impartiality is a promise woven into the fabric of our constitutional system. When the building was under construction in 1935, a journalist questioned whether the word 'equal' was necessary. But Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes insisted. In his words, 'plac[ing] a strong emphasis on impartiality' was essential.
He was right. As citizens, taxpayers, and participants in our democratic republic, we are entitled to expect impartiality from those who govern us. That's the promise of the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause — and in an era where government often seems to exceed its proper bounds, that expectation has never been more essential. Yet here in Connecticut, too often, that promise is being broken.
Our elected officials are placing a thumb on the scale in deference to favored special interests. In the legislature, they're promoting a bill that would fund striking workers with taxpayer dollars. And nowhere has their one-sidedness been more evident than in recent labor disputes unfolding across our state. Politicians who style themselves as champions of working families seem to forget that employers and their families are also their constituents — and all deserve equal consideration.
The strike at Pratt & Whitney began on May 5. Since then, a parade of elected officials from both parties have joined the picket line to demonstrate support for the strikers. Lt. Gov. Susan Bysiewicz tweeted that she was 'proud to stand with members of the machinist union.' The Connecticut AFL-CIO amplified her message with enthusiasm. U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy; U.S. Reps. Rosa DeLauro, Joe Courtney, Jahana Hayes, and John Larson; and state officials including Attorney General William Tong, State Senate Majority Leader Matt Lesser, Sen. Julie Kushner (herself a former UAW director) and Rep. Ron Delnicki also joined in.
Such one-sided and full-throated pro-union support only increases the likelihood of another work stoppage. Is this really in the best interests of Connecticut's people — and who is representing the broader public interest? Unions and employers can come to terms without government involvement, as shown by the tentative agreement reached at Electric Boat on May 18.
When elected officials take sides in a dispute between private parties — particularly while negotiations are ongoing — they forfeit their ability to serve as honest brokers. They also alienate those of us who are not party to the conflict but depend on sound governance and a functioning economy. We are right to wonder: Who is looking out for us?
The expectation in a free society should be simple: If a person or company is acting lawfully, government should not target or intimidate them. And yet, in Connecticut, official behavior can be tinged with partisanship and even punitive intent.
Take the case of Avelo Airlines. Because the airline cooperated with a federal deportation order issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Attorney General Tong threatened to review Avelo's eligibility for state economic incentives. This wasn't in response to illegal activity. It was a retaliatory threat resulting from partisan disapproval against a lawful contract with the federal government.
In recent years, it has become a bipartisan mantra that 'no one is above the law.' That's true. But no one is beneath the law, either. Employers engaged in good-faith labor negotiations deserve protection from political harassment. So do businesses acting within the scope of the law — even if their conduct offends the sensibilities of the political class.
When politicians pick winners and losers — not in the free market, but in the moral judgment of the state — they corrode the trust our system depends on. They reinforce the suspicion that government no longer serves all its citizens equally, but only those aligned with its preferred ideologies.
Trust in government is not a given. It must be earned — and protected. That starts with leaders who recognize that their job is not to champion favored factions, but to serve all of us, without fear or favor.
If justice is to be equal, it must also be impartial. The people of Connecticut deserve nothing less.
Carol Platt Liebau is the president of Yankee Institute, a Connecticut-based public policy organization.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why the surprise over Scots' reaction to Trump? Respect must be earned
Why the surprise over Scots' reaction to Trump? Respect must be earned

Miami Herald

time3 minutes ago

  • Miami Herald

Why the surprise over Scots' reaction to Trump? Respect must be earned

Re: Mary Anna Mancuso's Aug. 1 op-ed, 'Scotland's protests should concern every American.' Why is she surprised by the Scots' reaction to President Trump's visit? What does she expect? Respectfully disagreeing with Trump gets one libeled on his online platform. Continuing to disagree gets one taken to court (and paying for that may require filing for bankruptcy). If one continues to strongly disagree, then threats of bodily harm against one and one's family begin. And when one is physically assaulted, Trump and his people laugh! The Scots are only giving Trump what he gave them: insults. His Scottish neighbors protested how he ran roughshod over the environment surrounding his golf courses, his attempts to stop energy-producing windmills from spoiling his view and his superior attitude toward them. They actually have to live with the results of his schemes. To get respect, one has to earn it. Threatening everyone who refuses to bow down to you won't earn you any respect. Corey Mass, Miami Beach Senate's carelessness In early 1972, I accepted an appointment by then-U.S. Sen. Edward J. Gurney of Florida to serve as an attorney to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. I traveled to Washington with aspirations of improving the federal judicial system. Then Watergate broke out. During the next two years, while assisting Gurney, who served on the Judiciary and Watergate Committees, I had a worm's eye view of the tumult, including revelations great and terrible. I witnessed young men of great promise and ability go to jail, but I also watched the testimony of Elliott Richardson and Bill Ruckleshouse, who resigned office rather than carry out an order they deemed wrong (if not legally, then morally). It made me realize that principles matter and that our government requires constant loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law. Today, I see many parallels to the Watergate years, particularly when young lawyers disregard ethical considerations to further political ends, as by counseling defiance of court orders. Yet one distinction glares: during Watergate, the Senate joined the courts in investigating wrongdoing. I have every confidence today's courts will suffice under the doctrine of separation of powers, as federal judges are demonstrating daily, regardless who appointed them. I also have confidence that our military will withstand attempts to politicize it. However, it surely would help if the Senate were as concerned with the Constitution and the usurpation of their powers as they are with just getting reelected. R. Thomas Farrar, Miami Multiple articles have been published about the horrific boating accident last week on Biscayne Bay. Many of them referred to which boat had the 'right of way.' This terminology is misleading. On water, no boat has the 'right of way.' There is the 'give-way vessel,' which must take action to avoid a collision, or yield the right of way. There also is the stand-on vessel, which is supposed to maintain course. However, if it appears that the give-way vessel is not taking appropriate or adequate action to avoid a collision, the stand-on vessel then has the responsibility to maneuver to avoid a collision. While this might seem like semantics, it is important for all individuals operating a boat to know and understand. As has been mentioned in several articles, the determination of the give-way vessel and stand-on vessel varies based on many situations. Boating is a wonderful activity. Over the past few years, there have been many new recreational boat owners on our South Florida waters. Hopefully, they have been thoroughly educated in boating safety and operation and take care to avoid accidents. None of this will bring comfort to the victims and families of the recent tragedy, but education and knowledge will hopefully prevent future incidents. Seth Rosen, Pinecrest As a former high school social studies teacher, I would have to give Gov. Ron DeSantis a failing grade in American history and an A+ in making it up as he goes along. His 'civics excellence' program for Florida teachers is full of flat out lies, delusions, distortions and derangements, which fit very well within the core curriculum of his role model in the White House. Reconstructing the past to fit a delirious present is a slippery slope and depends on the assumption that Floridians are as ignorant as their chief executive. If that is the case, Florida has much larger problems than its residents can possibly comprehend. A search and destroy mission against the truth will have major unintended consequences. Undermining democracy requires the proper combination of fake news and fake history. Good luck with that recipe, Chef Ron. Craig Corsini, San Rafael, CA Last week's departure of ABC from WPLG Channel 10, after seven decades of affiliation, is quite alarming. I am old enough to remember when there was no ABC, but a Blue Network which was part of NBC, before breaking off into two networks. Apparently, Disney, which now owns ABC, offered less programming and higher fees, according to WPLG, hence their breakup. I also remember Disney when it was just happy producing films, then theme parks and now controlling Paramount and a broadcast network. Maybe Mickey is getting too big for his britches. Roger Shatanoff, Coral Gables In the Aug. 1 op-ed, 'Red states lead the charge to healthier living,' a Heritage Foundation analyst asserts that Florida's fluoride ban is an example of states' political and cultural realignments that will 'begin to change the health trajectory for their constituents.' True, but not in a good way. Why would anyone desire a political legacy that includes rotting kids' teeth? Bob Ross, Pinecrest As a high school senior who actively rides the Metrorail, I've been following the Miami Herald's recent stories on the impact of construction delays on local traffic. According to a July 7 report, the Future-Ready Modernization in Action plan to expand Miami International Airport will result in a 20 million passenger increase by 2040. Even though 2,240 additional parking spaces are planned to accommodate this growth, it's unclear that our roads can absorb the increase in rental cars, taxis and Ubers. Projects like the Signature Bridge will increase highway capacity; however, the completion date has been delayed by two years. Short-term solutions should be made available to daily commuters. We should use something like Miami-Dade's 'Better Bus Plan.' I took Metrorail to school using this six-week, fare-free promotion. It was clean, efficient and reduced my commute. Charles Holleman, Miami The detention center dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz,' hosted by Gov. Ron DeSantis, President Trump and their own military with cult followers, mirrors what Argentina experienced during its period of dictatorship. That regime's detention center/prison held in isolation those it snatched from daily life, then deported them. Without human rights, legal process or outside communication, detainees were drugged, abused and tortured. Pregnant women were allowed to live until after giving birth. In some cases, their babies were given to military officers' families wanting a child. View some of the documentaries about Argentina's 'Dirty War' to understand our own political unrest. Our political climate is repeating this history. Are U.S. citizens so blinded with loyalty to this type of leadership, or lack thereof, not to realize the destruction to our Constitution? It's time to take back control of public education, fact-based news and publications and the judicial system. Reel in religious institutions that spew hate and white supremacy in preaching while enjoying a tax-free platform. Jail the real criminals. Kimberly Cole, Kendall

Judge rules that Rhode Island's gun permit system does not violate Second Amendment
Judge rules that Rhode Island's gun permit system does not violate Second Amendment

San Francisco Chronicle​

time3 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Judge rules that Rhode Island's gun permit system does not violate Second Amendment

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — A federal judge says Rhode Island's gun permit system, which requires residents to show 'a need' to openly carry a firearm throughout the state, does not violate the Second Amendment. In a ruling handed down Friday, U.S. District Judge William Smith granted Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha's motion for summary judgment that dismisses a lawsuit filed by a coalition of gun owners in 2023. The lawsuit stems from a Rhode Island law dictating how the state issues firearms permits. According to the statute, local officials are required to issue concealed-carry permits to anyone who meets the specific criteria outlined in the statute. However, it also allows the attorney general's office to issue open-carry permits 'upon a proper showing of need.' Unlike municipalities, the attorney general is not required to issue such permits. The plaintiffs, largely led by Michael O'Neil, a lobbyist for the Rhode Island 2nd Amendment Coalition and a firearm instructor, said in their initial complaint that the attorney general's office denied all seven of their applications in 2021 for an 'unrestricted' firearm permit, allowing both open and concealed carry. Court documents show that the attorney general's office denied their permits because all of them had been granted 'restricted' permits, which only allowed concealed carry. Smith said in his ruling that unrestricted permits 'are a privilege and there is no constitutionally protected liberty interest in obtaining one.' The plaintiffs had hoped for a similar ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022, where the justices struck down a New York state law that had restricted who could obtain a permit to carry a gun in public. Yet, notably, Smith said in his ruling that the high court's 2022 ruling did not declare that the Second Amendment 'requires open carry,' but even if it did, Rhode Island's law 'is within the Nation's historical tradition of regulation.' Frank Saccoccio, the attorney representing the gun owners, said in an email Monday that they did not believe Smith's decision was in line with the 2022 SCOTUS decision and would be appealing.

Judge rules that Rhode Island's gun permit system does not violate Second Amendment

time4 minutes ago

Judge rules that Rhode Island's gun permit system does not violate Second Amendment

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A federal judge says Rhode Island's gun permit system, which requires residents to show 'a need' to openly carry a firearm throughout the state, does not violate the Second Amendment. In a ruling handed down Friday, U.S. District Judge William Smith granted Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha's motion for summary judgment that dismisses a lawsuit filed by a coalition of gun owners in 2023. The lawsuit stems from a Rhode Island law dictating how the state issues firearms permits. According to the statute, local officials are required to issue concealed-carry permits to anyone who meets the specific criteria outlined in the statute. However, it also allows the attorney general's office to issue open-carry permits 'upon a proper showing of need.' Unlike municipalities, the attorney general is not required to issue such permits. The plaintiffs, largely led by Michael O'Neil, a lobbyist for the Rhode Island 2nd Amendment Coalition and a firearm instructor, said in their initial complaint that the attorney general's office denied all seven of their applications in 2021 for an 'unrestricted' firearm permit, allowing both open and concealed carry. Court documents show that the attorney general's office denied their permits because all of them had been granted 'restricted' permits, which only allowed concealed carry. Smith said in his ruling that unrestricted permits 'are a privilege and there is no constitutionally protected liberty interest in obtaining one.' The plaintiffs had hoped for a similar ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022, where the justices struck down a New York state law that had restricted who could obtain a permit to carry a gun in public. Similar to Rhode Island, New York's law had required residents to show an actual need to carry a concealed handgun in public for self-defense. Yet, notably, Smith said in his ruling that the high court's 2022 ruling did not declare that the Second Amendment 'requires open carry,' but even if it did, Rhode Island's law 'is within the Nation's historical tradition of regulation.' Frank Saccoccio, the attorney representing the gun owners, said in an email Monday that they did not believe Smith's decision was in line with the 2022 SCOTUS decision and would be appealing.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store