Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, the Connecticut Supreme Court resists easy division into neat ideological voting blocs. The past year proved, once again, the futility of labeling our Justices as “liberal,” or “conservative”: Justice Richard Palmer, for example, wrote two opinions that expanded the rights of criminal defendants, State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 (2012), and State v. Rose, 305 Conn. 594 (2012), but also, at the very end of the last Court year, authored a scathing pro-prosecution dissent, State v. Lenarz, 301 Conn. 417 (2012) (He was joined by Justice Peter Zarella, the one member of the Court who merits a conservative label.)
Reading judicial tea leaves may be more of a challenge in Hartford than Washington, but when one examines the justices’ dissents and concurrences, interesting patterns do emerge. The past year proved fertile soil for that endeavor and it is an apt time for it: We are in the midst of wholesale changes in the Court’s roster Justice C. Ian McLachlan retired in June; Justice Lubbie Harper will do so in November; and Justice Flemming Norcott Jr. will retire in October 2013.
