Forgotten among all the partisan agitation about whether Justice Andrew McDonald should or should not have disqualified himself in the Santiago death penalty decision is the implicit premise of many of those who oppose his nomination to be the next chief justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court.

That implicit premise is that he is a “liberal” justice imposing his egalitarian social views on the body politic, rather than faithfully construing the Legislature’s original intent and leaving the Legislature in charge of bringing the law up-to-date. Being familiar with his decisions, we write to challenge that premise.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]