Round up Julia Tashjian and Miles Rapoport.
Flailing Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz claims that the duties of her job entailed practicing law. This will come as news to her predecessors who performed the same tasks but were not lawyers. The way Bysiewicz explained her job to The Hartford Courant’s Jon Lender, you have to be a lawyer to do it. But you don’t. The Secretary of State is not employed as a lawyer for the state.
Bysiewicz questioned the credentials of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal in her buckshot response to persistent questions. She says he wouldn’t have qualified without counting his 4 years as U.S. Attorney in the calculation of his years as a practicing lawyer. Bysiewicz diminishes herself with that tactic. The U.S. Attorney has, watch for it, attorney in his job title. It’s a job that specifically requires a lawyer. It’s not nice to try to soil Blumenthal’s credentials.
Blumenthal was otherwise engaged Friday when Bysiewicz sought an opinion from him on her eligibility for the office he now holds. This is a campaign matter and the attorney general’s opinion is not relevant to whether or not she meets the standard set by the law. She could ask legislators to change the law when it convenes in a couple of weeks. Her fellow Democrats would give it the consideration it merits.
2 comments
Her logic is unbearably flawed. She attacks the allegations that she is not engaged in the practice of law by making the rather humorous leap that if she is not engaged in the practice of law, then no government or corporate attorneys are engaged in the practice of law.
Huh?
Only problem is that no one is alleging that government or corporate attorneys are not engaged in the practice of law. The only allegation is that acting as Secretary of State (not any government attorney) is not engaging in the practice of law. The fact that she would engage in such an obviously flawed analysis leads me to two possible conclusions: 1) she doesn’t understand the issue; or 2) she understands the issue and is trying to hide it behind flawed legal analysis. Either option is bad.
Only real question a voter needs to ask; is this the quality legal analysis we can expect from her if elected the State’s lawyer.
At this point she should be receiving first rate legal advice from someone. That person or those persons must be telling her that her argument is weak because it is. I wonder how far she pushes it? If she gets hit with an injunction and loses then she’s done forever. If she comes out and says this “win or lose” this issue presents too much of distraction and announces her candidacy for SOS – she may live to fight another day because come November this will be long for gotten. Taking this to court is the equivalent of putting one’s life savings on the green square at a roulette table.