Judge who made gay marriage legal under fire (Mass.)

[underpants]

BTW- Marshall AND Cowin were appointed by Republican Gov. Paul Cellucci


http://www.thetranscript.com/Stories/0,1413,103~9054~2187695,00.html
Article Published: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 - 11:54:18 AM EST

BOSTON -- State lawmakers who oppose gay marriage yesterday renewed their long-shot bid to oust the Supreme Judicial Court justices who penned the majority opinion that made same sex weddings legal in Massachusetts.

Lawmakers have filed legislation that would take the extraordinary step of removing Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall for a variety of alleged violations of the state code of judicial conduct, mainly that she was biased toward gay people.

Another proposal, filed by Rep. Emile J. Goguen, D-Fitchburg, calls for the removal of associate justices John M. Greaney, Roderick L. Ireland, and Judith A. Cowin -- who joined Marshall in supporting gay marriages -- but also appears to have little support in the Legislature.


They accuse Marshall of attending two political events in 1999 and 2000 honoring gay and lesbian advocates, that Marshall "encouraged" lawyers for gay and lesbian couples to bring the lawsuit for the right to marry, and that Marshall "chased" media outlets to bring publicity to herself.

"Justice Marshall's decision was predetermined even before the case went to the SJC," Travis said, referring to the lawsuit brought by seven gay and lesbian couples. "The right thing for (Marshall) to have done when the case was kicked up to her court would be to have recused herself because of her past activity. I would have respected that."

[malachi]

1. Maybe thay should burn him at the stake.

Kind of fits their enlightened thinking.

[Democat]

2. This is incredible - what about Scalia? Maybe the press should compare!

One justice supporting civil rights, the other fighting against them, and idiot politicians are trying to remove the one fighting on the right side of the constitution.

Why are Democrats joining the attacks on this judge?

[Beatrix]

4. "Why are Democrats"

Some people say Zell is a "democrat".... I'm sure there are those that emulate him.

[Beatrix]

3. I wonder...

if a judge was known for going to NAACP events and other racial equality events - then heard a case in which a black person was not allowed in to a US Post office due to skin color and ruled in his favor - would that be grounds to remove that judge?

I can certainly see that this judge may have a personal leaning one way. (EVERY judge has personal leanings one way or the other. They are humans not robots.) It is irrlevent by its self IMO. The only thing relavent is rather or not the judge did not evenly evaluate both sides *in the court room*. It seems to me there is no evidence of that at this time.

Anyway this brings in the question... Should a judge be forbidden from going to ANY event that is for a particular issue? Even if they were - it's not like they still will not hold that personal opinion in private. Hell we let judges be associated with a political party in this country which encompasses just about every issue. I believe in England that is forbidden.

Oh as a side note... I seem to recall hearing of a supreme court justice (who happened to install bush) illegally silencing a reporter recently. Apparently that's not grounds for impeachment though.

[underpants]

8. Of course they have political leanings AND are a part of the community

What you said can be extended to all sorts of issues. What if they actively participate in neighborhood clean ups-can they not hear environmental cases?

Of course not this crap in Mass is simply an effort to punish the judges by forces that simply disagree with them. Dare I call it "Activist Legislators"?

[chelsea0011]

5. These crackpot legislators probably attend Christian churches

so they should be barred from running for office and imposing their beliefs on us?????????

[Catfight]

6. All this started by giving afro american rights you know..dammit!

Now everyone wants to be equal! What the hell is this world coming to when every person wants to be treated equal? It's so obvious that God made all of us different so we could be treated differently, what were our fore fathers thinking when that wrote that Constitution?

Sarcasm for the right wingers that think I'm on board with their bigoted prejudice idiotic moronic oppressive views.

[xchrom]

7. i heard it was giving women

the right to vote.