• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« McDermott Snaps Up Beer Institute General Counsel | Main | The Morning Wrap »

April 28, 2010



Added note:

It wouldn't be unreasonable to vote against Chatigny on the sole basis of Dodd and Lieberman's bases for nominating him in the first place. That alone is enough.


I viewed the April 28 Senate Judiciary hearing during which two judges were questioned. For a link to the archived webcast, go to this link on the Senate Judicary Committee web page and click on webcast on the right side:

Listen to senators Dodd and Lieberman introduce Judge Chatigny. If I were the judge, I would be insulted and embarassed. I doubt Chatigny is. Dodd and Lieberman are of course, beyond shame.

The insolence and delusional level of hubris exhibited by the opening introductions of both Dodd and Lieberman was offensive and an embarassment to Connecticut.

Note the contrast with the introductions provided later by senators Warner and Webb of Virginia of their nominee to the bench.


The process is dominated by partisan party politics on both sides.

Interests on both sides are issuing skewed portraits of this judge. The right is calling him activist and even soft on sexual offenders and the left defends him as some sort of exemplar of judicial temperance and integrity.

The fact is, this example of Chatigny's bad temper, arrogance and bullying is hardly an exception, as he and even some omniscient news reporters in no place to know have said.

His arrogance and intemperance is legion in the Connecticut district. As chief judge, administering the three courthouses in the Connecticut USDC district he was responsible for a fiasco that was an unmitigated administrative disaster and that fact has been utterly unreported, indeed suppressed, by the Connecticut press and by him too so that only a handful of people are truly aware of it.

Uncovering more facts about this part of his record would shed more light on what kind of man he is than all of his written opinions and decisions.

He has demonstrated to some of us with no party axes to grind that he is a country club lad who feels he is owed a seat on this ciurcuit. He freely violates the rights of court visitors, a fact buried under his substantial official ajudicatory record and supressed by court staff and judges and a chicken hearted press corps.

He has given every indication that he really couldn't care less about anything but impressing his peers and superiors enough to get what he wants.

Bill the skeptic

Ah, yes, Marilyn, and the obstructed nominations during the Bush years were what exactly? "A modicum of objectivity" is in order on both sides of the aisle.

Marilyn Noyes

The Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are consistently disingenuous hypocrites (and I don't think I'm being redundant). They should do their job with a modicum of objectivity in order to help uphold the highest standards of justice in this country, but instead they are constantly obstructing real justice in the name of cronyism and partisanship. They display disproportionate outrage in order to stop good jurists from being appointed and to prevent matters of immense significance from ever being adjudicated.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad