Committing to the rule of law

Hooray for the 500 lawyers who this month formed the Connecticut Rule of Law Committee, reprimanded President Trump, without quite naming him, for his recklessness about due process and his bullying of the judiciary, and righteously recommitted themselves to the rule of law. Trump often deserves scolding, even if it has yet to do much good.

But the chest-thumping of the lawyers might have seemed a bit hollow to those who can see other problems.

It might have been nice for the state to have had a rule of law committee when President Biden stopped enforcing immigration law and opened the borders, flooding the country with millions of illegal immigrants, many of whom came to Connecticut. Much of the financial emergency just declared by Governor Lamont, a deficit of nearly $300 million in the state’s Medicare program, involves coverage for immigrants lacking permanent legal statusfor whose medical care and housing government made no provision.

It might have been nice for Connecticut to have had a rule of law committee when political correctness took over and caused state government and many municipalities to adopt “sanctuary” policies obstructing enforcement of federal immigration law — a form of nullification.

It might have been nice for Connecticut to have had a rule of law committee when the state didn’t just repeal its criminal penalties for possession of marijuana but also thrust state government into the marijuana business, though the drug remains prohibited by federal law — more nullification.

Unfortunately there was no rule of law committee when the Connecticut Supreme Court, partly on the absurd basis of opinion polls, declared capital punishment unconstitutional though both the state and national constitutions expressly authorized it and continue to do so -- still more nullification.

Even now the General Assembly is preparing legislation to postpone for another four years enforcement of Connecticut’s law requiring a little racial integration of schools. Supposedly racial integration of schools has been constitutionally required since 1954. The Rule of Law Committee hasn’t gotten around to this one yet either.

All these issues are controversial, and lawyers throughout the state were involved with them, but none seems to have perceived their relation to the rule of law.

Quite apart from its many blind spots, there’s a self-serving element to the Connecticut Rule of Law Committee. Explaining the committee, one of its founders, James Glasser, cited “our desire to make sure people know that especially here in Connecticut, we’re particularly blessed with an outstanding judiciary.”

Well, maybe. But then how can a lawyer who makes his living by practicing before Connecticut’s judges characterize those judges -- in public, anyway -- as anything less than “outstanding”? A lawyer’s candor about the shortcomings of the judges before whom he practices might be bad for business. Indeed, expect the Rule of Law Committee to issue a thousand more reprimands of Trump before its first public criticism of a Connecticut judge.

Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years.