Scrutinize McDonald, but respect his history

THE ISSUE: On Monday, the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee is to begin the confirmation process to consider Andrew McDonald as the next chief justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court. McDonald was nominated by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, for whom he served as corporation counsel when Malloy was mayor of Stamford and later as general counsel in the governor’s office. The nomination drew national attention because McDonald would be the first openly gay state Supreme Court chief justice in any state. McDonald has already made his mark as the first openly gay member of the state Supreme Court as well as the first to serve as a legislator.

WHAT WE WROTE: “If McDonald is approved, Malloy will have appointed six of the seven justices. For a governor with toxic approval ratings, those justices could add a substantial coda to his legacy . ... We’ve seen McDonald in action since his days on Stamford’s Board of Finance and Board of Representatives, and as an attorney. He has served every position on his formidable resume with dignity, poise, patience and a profound sense of the complexities of justice.” Editorial, Jan. 11.

WHERE IT STANDS: Given Malloy’s friendship with McDonald, it is hardly surprising that the nomination drew skepticism from several Republicans. McDonald’s role in repealing the death penalty and as an advocate for gun control also inspired opposition from gun lobbyists. These are fair-game issues he surely expects to be asked about during the confirmation process, which should take several weeks. In recent days, McDonald also faced shameful slurs from an extreme homophobic website.

WHAT’S NEXT: While we reserve final judgment until the process is concluded, we dismiss suggestions that McDonald lacks the appropriate experience. After five years, he is the second-longest serving associate justice currently on the bench. In addition to his election to local boards in Stamford, he was a state senator, giving him valuable understanding of municipal operations, as well as how the state machine works. It’s also in his blood, as his mother, the late Anne McDonald, was a well-respected longtime state representative. He is such a political wonk that he listened to radio broadcasts of local government proceedings as a boy.

Making history is not reason enough to appoint McDonald. But this is also not the place to repeat the political debacle of rejecting Barack Obama’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court as a political opportunity.

If they can maintain the self-discipline to see McDonald clearly through the static, lawmakers will recognize that he has distinguished himself as a man of decency. His nomination demands scrutiny, and the members of the Judiciary Committee should ask the type of tough questions McDonald would have posed when he was co-chair of the same panel.

In doing so, they might consider the guiding wisdom of a three-word phrase they’ve known since childhood. This nomination must not be about politics, but about ensuring “justice for all.”

Members of the Judiciary Committee should ask the type of tough questions McDonald would have posed when he was co-chair of the same panel.