Thursday, March 29, 2018

Joan Heartless

Connecticut Governor Malloy nominated Andrew McDonald to be chief justice in the state's supreme court. McDonald is openly gay.

On Tuesday, the state's senate voted against the nomination. All 18 Republican senators voted against the nomination, along with Democrat Joan Hartley of Waterbury, who has a long record of voting against LGBT rights.

Hartley is a DINO (Democrat In Name Only) and it came as no surprise that she joined the homophobic Republican senators in voting against McDonald.

In the past, heartless Hartley voted against bills legalizing civil unions in 2005, codifying the state Supreme Court’s ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in 2009, enacting anti-discrimination projections for transgender individuals in 2011 and allowing same-sex couples to adopt children in 2000.

Heartless Hartley is a Catholic and wears her religion on her sleeve, so I want to ask her, "How would Jesus have voted?"

Source: ShopBop
Wearing Hudson dress, The Volon bag and Proenza Schouler shoes (Source: ShopBop)

Janek Traczyk
Janek Traczyk femulates Nancy Sinatra on Polish television's Your Face Sounds Familiar.


  1. Jesus would have associated with McDonald just like he did the people that were on the outskirts of Jewish society. He would have got to know him and what he stands for and then made a decision based on love and God's will because Jesus really knew what God wanted. Not some idea that has been filtered through human prejudices and views based on the Old Testament.

  2. Stana,
    I agree with your position about your state senator and yes, she isn't fit for the job. But I would also respectfully suggest that mocking her name lowers the tone of the conversation and invites retaliation.

    1. You are correct and I toned it down a bit.

  3. Jesus would never have been elected to political office. I'm just sayin'.

  4. Well that was quite a spirited rendition of "These Boots!" I also enjoyed the wardrobe and the talented backup dancers!

  5. While you make the blanket accusation that the Republicans are homophobic the article in the Hartford Courant, a rather left wing publication, noted that McDonald being a gay man NEVER came up during the nomination and confirmation process. It was only after his nomination was voted down that Malloy turned this into a partisan anti-gay issue. It was Malloy who chose to make McDonald's sexual orientation a political issue, not Hartley or the Republicans.
    The critical Democrat tie breaker was the honorable recusal by Gayle Slossberg who refused to vote because of "a bitter private clashes" she had with McDonald. The bitter dispute between Slossberg and McDonald has had some press. Slossberg was the swing voter.
    Ms. Hartley's stated reason for her opposition to McDonald was his stated refusal to ignore the law regarding the death penalty.
    McDonald is a deeply partisan liberal Democratic judicial activist who has a penchant for inserting his personal biases into his judicial decisions. He should have recused himself from decisions on many cases where he has stated his slanted views, including cases involving the death penalty, according to the article in the Hartford Courant.
    I appreciate and support your right to your left wing views and I even accept your right to blanket hatred of Republicans but I think your post went too far in demonizing Republicans and Ms. Hartley, who has a right to her views as well.
    Have a wonderful Easter.

    1. Do you seriously believe that any politician in Connecticut (or anywhere else for that matter) would come right out and say that they were voting against someone because that individual was gay? That would be political suicide.

      So, they claim some other reason for their anti-LGBT vote, but the proof is in the pudding. Take, for example, Hartley's consistent voting against bills promoting LGBT rights. (And regarding her concern about the death penalty, I find it amusing that the "good Catholic" Hartley is ok with killing adults in prison, but is against killing babies in the womb!)

      By the way, I went to a Catholic high school with Hartley and she was a snake in the grass then and to continue the wildlife metaphor, a leopard never changes its spots.

  6. All I am suggesting is that you are projecting your bias against a group. This group bias is what we are trying to eliminate. No one should hate all gays or all trans or all Democrats or all Republicans - but that is the politics of the Alinsky Rules for Radicals where the goal is to segregate, demean and demonize others as a means of achieving your own power. I value what you have to say and I like to think that you are above group denunciations. Projecting your views and assuming you can think for others and casting all Republicans as anti LGBT does little to move things forward.
    I try not to get involved in local politics of other states. We have enough bad politicians here. When I read your post I was at first surprised that you did not have a link to a local paper so I looked into the McDonald vote and its aftermath in the Ct. press. According to the press the LGBT flaming took place after the vote and it was instigated by Malloy.

  7. Stana,
    While I believe your assessment in this case, I think is may be more useful to simple state the facts in this case:
    1) McDonald was confirmed as a judge in the state supreme court not that many years ago.

    2) McDonald is gay.

    3) Republicans claim that they did not vote against him because he is gay.

    4) Anti-LGBT legislation has only come out of legislatures with Republicans all of or nearly all of the votes.

    5) We do not know what was on the heart of each legislator as they voted for or against McDonald.

    6) A party has never voted as a block against a judicial nominee who has been deemed qualified (and in this case previously supported (nearly) unanimously) in this state.

    So we are left to interpret the reasons behind the vote. The two that have been proffered are:

    1) He is gay and the Republicans could not tolerate or trust a gay man as the chief justice.
    2) The CT Republicans have taken a queue from Washington and will oppose a qualified nominee based simply on the party. In this case knowing that Harley would join them emboldened them because they could succeed.

    Either of these explanations is disturbing as they strike at our ability to govern effectively - something that we are dearly lacking these days.

    With respect to Hartley's vote. Her voting record is such an anti-LGBT reason for her vote seems plausible if not likely but we will never know unless she tells us. If it is the reason, then she is not practicing the Catholic faith that I both know and love. The reasons for her vote is something that is a matter for those that vote in her district and between her and her God.

    I hope you are having a happy Easter.