October 15, 2010

Wright opposes Rell's call for four more judges

State Rep. Chris Wright, a Bristol Democrat, just issued this:

“Time To Freeze Judicial Appointments”
State Representative Christopher Wright (D-Bristol) says he is opposed to Governor Rell’s most recent call to nominate four attorneys to be Superior Court judges because of the state’s ongoing budget crisis.

The Governor announced last month that she had nominated four attorneys to the Superior Court bench

“This sends the wrong message to Connecticut’s residents,” Rep. Wright said. “”Everyone in state government is being asked to economize and this is not the time to be increasing the number of Superior Court judges whose salaries start at $146,780 a year, plus benefits.

Rep. Wright explained that his position against nominating new judges is not a reflection of the attorneys nominated by the Governor because “they are highly qualified individuals, but this is a matter of holding down state spending.”

Rep. Wright voted against the nine new judges nominated by the Governor earlier this year at a time when courthouses and other judicial facilities faced potential closure.

Because the legislature is not in session, the General Assembly’s Judiciary Committee must meet to consider the Governor’s four nominees and could approve them as interim appointees.

“It is my hope that this group of four nominees will not be approved,” Rep. Wright stated. “If called upon to vote for more judges, I will again vote no.”


Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com


Anonymous said...

While I tend to agree with not appointing Judges while in a budget crisis, why didn't Chris take the same logic when he voted to give Dan Malloy another 6 million dollars in Tax payer money?

It is really funny that he would become a fiscal conservative only sometimes.

Anonymous said...

Too little, too late Wright. Your days as a rep are numbered. You made your bed when you didn't support our businesses and ESPN. Now you'll lay in it.

Anonymous said...

Chris you just figured it out TODAY? We need Jill yesterday.

really said...


voter screwed again said...

have you seen the tv ad with wright and his father, a paid lobbyist, for st. francis hospital?
would seem to me to be a political ad in a way to skirt the election laws.

Anonymous said...

Whats funny is a Democrat at election time up in arms about spending money! I love it! Chris, I am sure this will not help you get people to vote for you! Give me a break! Lets talk about the things that you have voted for that are going to increase taxes!

Anonymous said...

Now that Chris has become a fiscal conservative, all he has to do is take the Republican press releases and change the topic.

Ding Dong

Anonymous said...

The ad for St Francis is an embarassment and a sleezy attempt to circunvent election laws...TJ...you should look into that!

wright is wrong said...

Daddy's a lobbyist for the hospital where Chrissie works. Gee did daddy get him his job? Daddy got him nominated as a candidate, daddy and daddy's friends got this pathetic midget elected. But who pulls daddy's strings?

Nothing this little man does or says has any integrity.

send him home to daddy said...

October 15, 2010 3:58 PM et al:

Wright didn't say anything about spending, just this silly local sales tax idea. I must admit he's right on that.

But Wright fails to tell us how he plans on creating a better job climate in Connecticut. He also fails to tell us that he's supported higher taxes on businesses and corporations many times.

He's supposedly for the "little guy" and the poorer classes, but he fails to realize that the entities he likes to tax are the ones who create the jobs we need. So he favors not taxing people, even though they have little opportunity and high unemployment.

He's a priviledged liberal and a political hack. He needs to be sent home for good from the CT Legislature.

Anonymous said...

TJ hasn't looked into anything, and never will unless it concerns Colapietro

Anonymous said...

Just out of curiosity, how does the managing corporation feel about hanging its name on a blog that apparently operates without any policy of common decency or editorial review so that any "Anonymous" writer can hijack the corporation's brand name image to promote their cause, using material that the regular editorial board would probably exercise better judgment about publishing? Anonymous Trash = $$ ??