Just over a year ago, this Law Tribune Editorial Board published an editorial in support of the re-appointment of former Connecticut Supreme Court Justice Richard Palmer. Palmer’s re-appointment had been faced with opposition in the Judiciary Committee on the basis of his votes in several high-profile cases as well as a charge of being an “activist judge.”

In our editorial, we cautioned the Legislature against going down a dangerous path of getting caught up in partisan, outcome-oriented opposition that had so infected the judicial nomination process at the federal level. Palmer, we urged, should be re-appointed because he was eminently qualified.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]