Lessons from a Supreme Court nomination hearing.

Judiciary Committee members meet today to congratulate Nora Dannehy, former federal prosecutor and former counsel to Governor Ned Lamont, on her nomination to the State Supreme Court by Lamont. After a public hearing, they will vote to advance Dannehy to the full legislature.

Members of the public submitted testimony to the committee. As of Wednesday morning, more than a dozen opposed Dannehy. They identified themselves as belonging to various groups, including Latinas for Trump, Keep the Promise, People Over Elites, Latino Justice, People’s Party Project and Say No to Anti-Trump Nominee. There’s also someone who described himself as “a concerned citizen.”

Lawyers Eugene Riccio and William Dow III submitted testimony in favor Dannehy’s nomination. Dow is a titan of the Connecticut defense bar. They say more than the enigmatic Dannehy is likely to reveal herself.

Four people comprise the list of members of the public who wish to offer oral testimony.

Committee members will have an opportunity to pose questions to Dannehy after members of the public speak. A nominee to the high court who has not previously served on the bench often has little written record revealing a philosophy of the law in theory and practice. Dannehy spent most of her career as a federal prosecutor, with stops at UTC (now Raytheon) and state attorney general’s office. How Dannehy advised the aeronautics manufacturer to do business in an authoritarian state like Saudi Arabia, for example, might provide a look at her views when acting in a role considerably different than a prosecutor.

What Dannehy sees as the limits on the growing surveillance state, if any, should also be of some interest to legislators. Must the constitutional right to confront one’s accuser give way to the camera? What is state’s obligation to fund local education under the State Constitution? Views matter. No nominee to the state’s highest court arrives as a blank slate.

Nine years ago the State Supreme Court struck down the state’s death penalty law in a 4-3 decision. The majority opinion set out a new standard of review, “contemporary standards of decency,” to reach its decision. Dannehy ought to be asked what she thinks that means. What are our “contemporary standards of decency”? And what are hers? Does she see areas of the law where they are not met?

There will likely be no questions like that. The deal has been done. Today will bring a festival of congratulations and none of the traditional probing. In return, the next opening on the State Appellate Court will go to a Superior Court judge who has been chosen. She will receive a similar reception to Dannehy’s.

In the meantime, shhhh.

Published September 20, 2023.