During our debate last year, Senator Lieberman intoned that he wanted to “elect a Democratic President in 2008,” and that my election would “frustrate and defeat our hope of doing that.” With his endorsement of John McCain today, it is now clear that Joe Lieberman is the one working to defeat our hopes.
Last year, Senator Lieberman pleaded with voters to consider his full throated support for the invasion of Iraq as merely a “single issue” in the context of an otherwise progressive agenda. His endorsement of Senator McCain reminds us that the war in Iraq is actually Lieberman’s predominant issue, trumping all else – or maybe he is looking forward to joining Sen. McCain in a duet rendition of “Bomb, Bomb, Iran.”
A McCain presidency would make privatizing social security more likely, investing in our middle class less likely, and tipping the balance of the Supreme Court for decades a near-certainty. The court is one vote away from overturning Roe v. Wade and further expanding the power of the Presidency at the expense of our civil liberties and constitutional freedoms. It is ironic that Lieberman’s fellow Connecticut senator, Chris Dodd, is today courageously leading the congressional charge against illegal wiretaps, not to mention bringing America’s combat role in the Bush-McCain-Lieberman war to an end.
With voters just weeks away from making their first decisions, Democrats are lucky to have many extraordinary candidates running for President. I am disappointed that Senator Lieberman does not feel the same way.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
