Connecticut's Broken Promise: When Equal Justice Favors Special Interests
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
35 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Same-Sex Marriage Turnback 'Possible But Unlikely', Legal Experts Say
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Ten years after Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, the Supreme Court is being asked to revisit the landmark ruling. Mathew Staver, counsel for petitioner Kim Davis, told Newsweek he believes the case could overturn Obergefell. However, several other legal experts say the widely accepted law is unlikely to be reversed. The Context The petitioner is Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk jailed in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing her religious beliefs. Davis argues Obergefell v. Hodges was wrongly decided and that her refusal was protected under the First Amendment. Under U.S. law, a party can petition the Supreme Court to review a case after lower courts have ruled against them, typically by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari. The Court is not required to hear the case—it selects only a small fraction of petitions, often those raising significant constitutional questions, resolving conflicts among lower courts, or addressing issues with broad national impact. Davis and her legal team are asking the justices to take up her case as a vehicle to reconsider Obergefell itself. What People Are Saying Newsweek asked experts to assess the petition's chances and the legal, moral, and procedural factors that could influence the Court's decision. 10 Years Of Marriage Equality By Supreme Court Could Be Reviewed 10 Years Of Marriage Equality By Supreme Court Could Be Reviewed Anthony Behar/AP Here are their exclusive responses: Mathew D. Staver, Liberty Counsel "This case presents compelling facts for the Supreme Court to review. Kim Davis asked for a reasonable accommodation of her religious belief—to remove her name from marriage certificates. That request was granted by newly elected Governor Matt Bevin in December 2015, and in April 2016, the legislature unanimously passed a law allowing clerks to remove their names from certificates. Yet she was sued, jailed for six days, and now faces a personal judgment exceeding $360,000. "We are asking the Court to affirm her First Amendment defense and to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. We are optimistic because three current justices—Chief Justice Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito—dissented in Obergefell. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, five justices ruled that substantive due process is not grounded in the Constitution and that the Court should remain neutral when the Constitution does not expressly provide a right. Obergefell is likewise grounded in that now-rejected doctrine, and the Court should remain neutral regarding marriage as it did in 2022 regarding abortion. "We need four justices for certiorari and five to win. We believe this is the case that can overturn Obergefell." William Powell, Georgetown Law "We are confident the Supreme Court, like the court of appeals, will conclude Davis's arguments do not merit further attention. Marriage equality is settled law." Erwin Chemerinsky, UC Berkeley Law "I think it is unlikely the Court will overrule Obergefell, though it is possible. Marriage equality is deeply entrenched and widely accepted in American society. Roberts, Thomas, and Alito all dissented in Obergefell. I expect Thomas and Alito would vote to overturn. Roberts's position is uncertain, though the only dissent he ever read from the bench was in Obergefell. Justice Gorsuch wrote a dissent in Pavan v. Smith sharply criticizing Obergefell. What about Kavanaugh and Barrett? There may be the votes, but my instinct is the Court is unlikely to do so. It is not controversial in the way Roe v. Wade remained." Camilla Taylor, Lambda Legal "This case's procedural posture is simply not an appropriate one for reconsidering Obergefell. Other cases might provide a 'cooler vehicle,' but they are nowhere near ready for Supreme Court review. While the threat is some distance off, this is a Supreme Court that has shown it will casually overturn decades of precedent and upend civil rights. "If reversed, it would create a patchwork of states where same-sex marriage is legal in some places but banned in others. The Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) ensures states must recognize marriages performed elsewhere and the federal government will do the same. Public opinion now enjoys broad, majoritarian support for same-sex marriage. Justice Kennedy's Obergefell opinion noted that denying marriage sends the message that families are 'lesser' and 'something of which they should feel ashamed'—a stigma the government was required to address. That belief remains relevant: you shouldn't brand classes of people as lesser simply because of who they love." Ilya Somin, George Mason University "If Obergefell were overturned, most states—due to over 70% public support—would still have same-sex marriage, but perhaps eight or nine socially conservative states would not. That would raise questions about how to handle same-sex couples who married while Obergefell was in effect. RFMA requires states to recognize marriages contracted elsewhere, but in non-issuing states it would still be a hassle. "The end of Roe was unsurprising because opponents saw abortion as akin to murder. By contrast, very few opponents of same-sex marriage assign it a moral weight equal to murder. Davis's case is weaker legally because she was a public official exercising state power. Accepting her argument could open the door to refusals for interracial or interfaith marriages on religious grounds. I doubt there are five votes to overturn Obergefell, estimating no more than two or three justices might favor it, though nothing is certain." Gene C. Schaerr, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP "It is very unlikely the Supreme Court will revisit Obergefell soon, though challenges will continue. Roberts once compared it to Dred Scott, but reliance interests are massive. Hundreds of thousands of couples have relied on it in arranging their most intimate and important life relationships. Overruling such a decision would create popular distrust in the judiciary. Justice Scalia believed in factoring reliance interests; Justice Thomas does not. The notion of destroying marriages and undoing family relationships would be extremely difficult for the Court to justify." What Happens Next For the Supreme Court to hear the case, at least four justices must agree to grant certiorari. The Court selects only a small fraction of petitions, focusing on those with significant constitutional issues or conflicting lower-court rulings.
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Supreme Court isn't poised to end gay marriage, despite the media's fearmongering
This case is not likely to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, nor is it anywhere close to ending the constitutional protections for gay marriage. A former county clerk in Kentucky has officially filed a petition to the Supreme Court, asking it to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the ruling that founda constitutional right to same-sex marriage. People should temper their reactions to this petition. There is no guarantee that this case will be heard, and there is no indication that the nation's highest court is likely to overturn the previous ruling. The general public has a poor understanding of how the Supreme Court, and the judicial branch in general, actually works. The court is not a partisan machine that takes cases based on the whims of the Republican Party, but rather a process-oriented institution that is very restrained. While I understand the fears that members of the LGBTQ+ community hold at the prospect of losing their right to marry, particularly in the context of the hostile cultural swing within the GOP against it, fearmongering coverage only stokes overreactions. This case is not likely to be heard by the court, nor is it anywhere close to ending the constitutional protections for gay marriage. Petitions for review are many, but Supreme Court decides few cases The Supreme Court has discretion over what cases it takes, so a petition for review does not necessarily mean that the panel will consider the issue. It takes the votes of four justices to eventually grant review in a case, which advances it to the court's docket. All of this is to say that just because a petition is filed with the Supreme Court, that doesn't mean it will eventually be heard. The vast majority are never heard. Of the more than 7,000 cases filed each year, the Supreme Court grants review in only 100-150 of them. In 2024, for example, the court ultimately ruled on just 59 cases. While legislation is by no means a complete replacement for a constitutional amendment, the constitutional right to gay marriage is rendered somewhat obsolete by the Respect for Marriage Act, the 2022 piece of bipartisan legislation that requires states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The odds of that legislation being overturned are extremely low, given gay marriage's popularity, even among conservatives. Thus, if the constitutional protections for gay marriage were to disappear, the practice still would most likely remain protected. The fearmongering began almost immediately But none of that stopped people from panicking at the prospect of the court considering such a case. Obviously, the partisan hacks of X immediately latched onto this story to fearmonger, but even larger news sources like ABC couldn't help themselves from dedicating feature-length articles to the topic. 'Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision,' said ABC News in an X post. Despite acknowledging the fact that the case is a 'long shot' in its own article on the matter, ABC News chose to frame this piece in this manner because it sensationalizes the potential for Obergefell to be overturned, with little indication that this is not an impending event. Other news sources were far more honest in their framing, but ABC News' post is irresponsible because it capitalizes on a massive problem in American civic education. Others, including USA TODAY, have tied it to President Donald Trump's position, while highlighting that the case is unlikely to succeed. Supreme Court literacy is important, but it's currently lacking At the moment, gay marriage is extremely safe going into the future. So, what is all the worry about? As it stands, very few Americans understand the judicial processes that lead to a case being considered by the Supreme Court. Even many who are otherwise rather politically intelligent understand very little about how the Supreme Court operates. The typical American comically knows little about the Supreme Court, from basic facts like the number of justices to the branch of government the court is housed within. Americans who have a limited understanding of this information naturally have little business understanding the meaning of a petition for certiorari or how precedent is overturned. Partisan sources are aware of this and capitalize on it. Democratic groups have already begun to incorporate the mere fact that someone has petitioned the court to review such a decision. I've written previously about how people's views of the court are far too simplistic, and that is an interconnected problem with this one. People do not understand the dynamic of the court well enough to actually make judgments beyond the partisan talking points. People naturally assume that the conservative majority Supreme Court will always rule in favor of conservative social outcomes, but the justices have proved that's not the case. Sources like the ABC News article may not be malicious, but their potential for harm is still great. America has a problem with civic education when it comes to the Supreme Court, but an honest news media has a responsibility to be conscious of framing court stories in relation to the public's knowledge. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
New York Post
12 hours ago
- New York Post
Oklahoma starts giving tests to teachers from NY and Calif. to weed out ‘woke indoctrinators'
Educators from liberal states like New York and California who want to teach in Oklahoma will now have to take a test to prove they aren't 'woke indoctrinators' before they are allowed in Sooner State classrooms, the state's school chief said Friday. Ryan Walters, Oklahoma's superintendent for public instruction, told The Post that arriving teachers will need to pass a multiple-choice quiz that includes questions on the 'biological differences between males and females,' Christianity and American history. 'Here in Oklahoma, our academics are going to be grounded in fact,' the school leader declared. Advertisement Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters. AP 'We've seen states like New York and California go so radical with gender theory and Marxist indoctrination, they are warping the minds of young people … We need our teachers to agree to not be woke indoctrinators in the classroom.' The 50-question test was developed by conservative media company PragerU and newly minted Oklahomans need to pass it in order to obtain a teaching license, according to CNN. Advertisement One question asks applicants which chromosome pairs determine biological sex, according to a sample of questions obtained by The Post. Other questions ask what the first three words in the Constitution are and why freedom of religion is important to America's identity. Additional questions probe how many US senators there are, what the two parts of Congress are, and why some states have more US representatives than others. 'We're also going to be teaching the foundations of American history… So we can continue to be the greatest country in the world. We want our students to be patriots,' Walter told The Post. Advertisement 'You're not gonna lie to kids about the influences Christianity had on American history,' he added. 'We want you to teach history appropriately.' State Flag flies over Oklahoma State Capitol, Oklahoma City. Universal Images Group via Getty Images The Sooner State has seen an influx of about 500 new teachers from a signing bonus program that aimed to draw in the 'highest quality' educators — but Walters cautioned that any 'radical woke gender theory that goes against biology and science' won't be tolerated. 'We've begun to be concerned with what we're seeing from teachers moving from blue states,' he said. Advertisement Only new teachers from New York and California need to take the test so far, CNN reported, but newcomers from up to eight more states might also be assessed. Walter didn't know the number of new teachers who had moved from the two coastal states, but an aide told CNN it was a 'fairly large' number of applicants seeking teachers' licenses. Walters, a staunch conservative, hasn't been shy about his stances and policies that have been lambasted by critics on the left. He put in place mandates to teach students the Bible as a 'necessary historical document,' which got kudos from President Trump at the time.
