The Half Life of an Ugly Footnote.

The legislature is taking more time than usual in its consideration of another term for a state Supreme Court justice. Richard N. Palmer’s renomination was held by the legislature’s judiciary committee on Friday after a long session with the controversial three term member of the state’s highest court. All other judicial nominations advanced through the committee.

One hurdle for Palmer is his struggle to explain the  notorious footnote 69 in the 2015 decision in Richard LaPointe v. Commissioner of Correction. The case was argued in 2013 and the opinion provided a glimpse of what an unpleasant place the court has become. Palmer accused colleague Carmen E. Espinoza of dishonoring the court with her dissent in the 1987 Manchester murder case.

Palmer’s lengthy footnote concluded, “We will not respond in kind to Justice Espinosa’s offensive accusations; we are content, instead, to rely on the merits of our analysis of the issues presented by this appeal. Unfortunately, in taking a different path, Justice Espinosa dishonors this court.”

The published footnote does not reveal the entire path of the controversy. Legislators ought to ask to see what Palmer originally circulated to colleagues in the majority opinion that took an unusually long time to be completed. They can apply their own experiences in public discourse to determine if it was appropriate and decide if it meets the fluid standard of cultural norms Palmer embraced in his stunning about-face on the death penalty.