A bill that would have required parental approval to let their young teenagers go to a tanning parlour got torpedoed at the last minute by a amendment sponsored by state Sen. Michael McLachlan, R-Danbury, that required parental permission for abortions. ... That infuriated supporters of the tanning bill, who say it might have done something worthwhile -- reduce the number of young people getting skin cancer.
"I have no idea why he did this,'' Nancy Alderman, executive director of Environment and Human Health Inc., a North Haven-based advocacy group, said of McLachlan.
He did it because he is an asshole. But I digress.
His T-Shirt says "I'm with me."
In a sane world, this kind of thing would be greeted by legislative punishment - Sen. McLachlan's bills would be killed in committee, or on the floor, without a chance of passing, until the tanning bill passed.
But this isn't a sane world. Because in this world, Sen. McLachlan's bills are so rife with jackassery, so completely unserious that they kill themselves out of stupidity.
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.
