your kidding right? they refused to even address it correctly. go on, read what the 1 dissentin judge, a liberal, stated:
MCDONALD, C. J., dissenting. I disagree with themajority opinion and would construe General Statutes§ 38a-334 to require the defendant, whose municipaltruck the plaintiff was operating, to afford the plaintiffuninsured and underinsured motorist protection.Section 38a-334 (a) requires such coverage for privatepassenger motor vehicles, as defined in General Stat-utes § 38a-363 (e), including ‘‘motor vehicles with acommercial registration, as defined in section 14-1. . . .’’ General Statutes § 14-1 (a) (12) defines ‘‘ ‘[c]om-mercial registration’ ’’ to mean ‘‘the type of registrationrequired for any motor vehicle designed or used totransport merchandise, freight or persons in connectionwith any business enterprise, unless a more specifictype of registration is authorized and issued for suchclass of vehicle . . . .’’ Common experience teachesus that the defendant’s Ford Yankee coach F-350, whichwasequippedwitha FordAmbulancePreparationPack-age, was designed to carry persons and loads in connec-tion with business enterprises, and it therefore fallsunder the statutory definition. Because ‘‘no part of alegislative enactment is to be treated as insignificantor unnecessary, and there is a presumption of purposebehind every sentence, clause or phrase . . . [so that]
no word [or phrase] in a statute is to be treated assuperfluous’’; (internal quotation marks omitted) Statev. Payne, 240 Conn. 766, 771–72, 695 A.2d 525 (1997);we should consider every word in the statute, includingthe word ‘‘designed’’ found in § 14-1 (a) (12).The type of registration ‘‘required for’’ the vehicle atissue here was the one that was in fact issued by thecommissioner of motor vehicles, a municipal numberplate as provided by General Statutes § 14-12 (k).1Iwould conclude that the exception contained in § 14-1(a) (12), which exempts from the general definitionof ‘‘commercial registration’’ a more specific type ofregistration that is authorized and issued by the com-missioner for such class of vehicle, does not apply toa truck with a municipal number plate. I do so becausemunicipal plates are authorized and issued to all classesof municipal motor vehicles, including sedans, stationwagons, and trucks of all kinds. I would interpret theexception contained in § 14-1 (a) (12) to refer only to‘‘class[es] of vehicle[s]’’ for which the commissionerauthorized and issued a specific type of registrationsuch as those found in General Statutes § 14-25a (cer-tain construction equipment); General Statutes § 14-25b(special mobile equipment); and General Statutes § 14-26 (motor or service buses, taxicabs, school buses,motor vehicles in livery service and school buses usedin part in livery service).The majority’s construction of § 38a-334 leads to aresult where the plaintiff would have been coveredwhile driving ‘‘a private passenger motor vehicle’’ suchas a sedan, station wagon or a light pickup truck ownedby the defendant, but he is not covered here becausethe municipal vehicle was a heavier truck. We shouldnot conclude that the legislature intended such a result.Our interpretation should be consistent with the pri-mary intent of uninsured and underinsured motoristcoverage legislation. ‘‘We must avoid a constructionthat fails to attain a rational and sensible result thatbears directly on the purpose the legislature sought toachieve.’’ Turner v. Turner, 219 Conn. 703, 713, 595A.2d 297 (1991). That intent, we have recognized, is tomake uninsured and underinsured motorist protectionavailable to the broadest number of accident victims.See Harvey v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 188 Conn. 245,250–51, 449 A.2d 157 (1982) (‘‘it is the intent of thelegislature to provide broad coverage to victims of unin-sured motorists’’).This decision exempts every heavy municipal truckfrom required coverage and deprives a great numberof accident victims of that coverage.Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.1General Statutes § 14-12 (k) provides in relevant part: ‘‘[T]he commis-sioner shall issue to a municipality, as defined in section 7-245, or a regionalsolid waste authority comprised of several municipalities, upon receipt ofan application by the municipality or regional solid waste authority, a generaldistinguishing number plate for use on a motor vehicle owned or leased by
such municipality or regional solid waste authority.’’
Matthew 10:34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Didn't think it would take long.
Seems according to sources here as well as various news etc sites that she has a lil problem with thinking she is a legislator.
IOW an Activist Judge...figures.
Good for him. He will get to have his cake and eat it too.
The more I read about Sotomayer, there's a lot of potential for backfire if the Republican's get too zealous in their objections. You put these quotes of her's in context and there's not much there to object to.
I don't know if I'm buying centrist, but she's not far-left or 'activist' at all.
Lawyers who argued in front of her and lost are bound to be critical of the questions she asked from the bench. Those who have gotten favorable decisions from her are saying she's just tough on attorneys.
I laugh when I hear the right mention "activist judge" -- read some of Scalia's decisions.
If you're not, explain your position in light of the fact that Bush got a diploma - from Yale.
Last edited by F107HyperSabr; 05-26-09 at 06:43 PM.
“I do not recall the Viet Cong asking me if I was a natural born or Naturalized American before they shot at me, they just shot at all of us “ f107HyperSabr