More from the Family Institute: Group Plans to Fight Andrew McDonald\’s Nomination to State Supreme Court

by Categorized: Uncategorized Date:

The Family Institute of Connecticut is gearing up to fight the nomination of Andrew McDonald to the state Supreme Court.

McDonald\’s confirmation hearing is scheduled for Monday before the legislature\’s judiciary committee and the FIC is urging its members to send emails to their lawmakers opposing the nomination.

McDonald, a former legislator and co-chair of the judiciary committee, was a leading advocate for gay rights in the legislature. He also angered FIC and other religious conservatives when the committee proposed a bill to give lay members more say in the financial matters of the Roman Catholic Church.

\”Andrew McDonald should not be rewarded for attacking marriage, religious liberty and the right of women not to have men in public restrooms with them,\’\’ the FIC said in an email blast to supporters.

\”Monday\’s hearing–and the confirmation votes that are expected on January 23rd–are usually rubber-stamp affairs. A defeat–or even a higher-than-normal \’no\’ vote–on McDonald\’s confirmation will send a powerful message that Connecticut will not just roll over and accept government by judicial activism.\” 

 

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

12 thoughts on “More from the Family Institute: Group Plans to Fight Andrew McDonald\’s Nomination to State Supreme Court

  1. Richard

    Normally I’d question if the FIC is fighting the right battle. Gay men should have the right to serve on the court. But, and Peter wolfgang got it right, Andrew’s unconstitutional attempts to micromanage Catholic Affairs is deserving of contempt. Subversion by way of the unwritten agenda of the VOTF faction to make Catholicism more gay friendly with dogma voted from the ground up via Bishop selection by popular vote.

    I remain unconvinced Andrew can read the constitution much less honor it or understand it. If you want a judicial activist who will throw the piece of paper away and make his own mark on the judiciary by fiat and justifiy it by some rambling attempts to fit his square peg decisions into round holes of judicial precedence or imagined rights and penumbras and enumerations then you have the guy you want. A Creationist!

    I despise judicial activists. Gay marriage would have made the polls in CT by 2012 at the latest and would have passed. Well worth the 7-year wait IMHO.

    The Court undermines the popular vote leaving people apathetic about the process and hating their bought and sold legislative reps and the Party System.

    If Malloy had any common sense he would propose an anti-activist–someone who respects the legislature and the popular vote and encourages broader voter participation by a referendum process where the most important decisions filter down to the public instead of to the unholy cabal appointed and then vetted by the Gold Domers in Xanadu.

  2. Bruce Rubenstein

    This FIC organisation is a radical right wing operation that is intolerant of equal rights for all citizens and belongs in an ashbin. Attorney McDonald’s credentials and professional history appear from my reading of them, to be excellent and hopefully he will be confirmed easilly.

    1. Da Troof

      If you say so Bruce. You after all are the expert on people and organizations.

      We’ll contact you again when we need your expert opinion.

    2. Sean Murphy

      Bruce spews the typical left wing rant on socially conservative organizations. FIC supports marriage between a man and a woman. They are for this not against gays. HUGE difference.

      McDonald showed as a legislator that he has contempt for the Catholic Church, does not believe in the right to freely practice religion, and opposes rights of gun owners. His track record permanently disqualifies him for the judiciary.

      1. Repeal 2nd Amendment Bill

        Well Sean, If I felt less opinionated on who should be able to marry, I don’t on gun rights. Guns should be outlawed. Short of this, laws should be enacted to place extreme burden on the purchaser of a gun whatever this may be.

        McDonald sounds right for the job. And when one of those self-serving conservative Supreme Court justices retires or better yet, drives into the Patomic River, we can replace with a liberal, progressive, leftist judge and lift oppression that the now majority has inflicted on this country.

    3. Richard

      Welcome back Bruce. Speaking of radical wingers and the ashbin of history, isn’t it time for a little SDS and Weathermen nostalgia? Or time to offer your professional advice on whether the Bysiwiecz qualification case is ripe for adjucation prior to her election?

      I thought not.

  3. Connecticut Man1

    This is not news. Why would anyone care what the homophobes at FIC think about anything? They have a Blog that almost nobody in the state of Connecticut reads unless someone in left blogtopia or the media links to them to righteously mock them.

  4. No one you're likely to know....

    >>This FIC organisation is a radical right wing operation that is intolerant of equal rights for all citizens and belongs in an ashbin.

    Oh come now Bruce, Peter’s always had the nicest things to say about you.
    (When did you begin spelling like the Brits by the way? (ie: `organisation’))

  5. Eric Brown

    I have known Andrew for more than 20 years and in that time I have come to respect him for his legal intellect, and his empathy for his fellow man and woman. He is exactly the kind of person we need in our State’s judiciary: a creative thinker who can find common-sense solutions to the complex problems of today and tomorrow.

  6. John Truenorth

    I am grateful to FIC for calling attention to this. We should all be concerned when someone with Andrew McDonald’s track record is nominated to such an influential position. This man’s personal agenda has clouded his sense of judgement as evidenced by his flagrant disregard for the constitution in attacking the Catholic Church. Also, Bill 1098 which he supported was pure political theater in creating a new protected class “gender identity” that was unnecessary and will be unenforceable. We should all be very worried when our govt officials act as if they can carry out such radical agenda with impunity.

  7. CTPati

    Richard and Sean are right, as is Mr. Wolfgang.

    McDonald does NOT have the proper temperament to be considered as an unbiased Judge.

    I will never forget (because I was there) some years ago when the general assembly was considering (and then voting) on SSM, Sen. McDonald stood up and said that the “only reason to vote No is hatred and bigotry.”

    That statement alone proves him to be biased against other views–let alone his attacks on Catholics and other people of religious and traditional moral views.

Comments are closed.