[freetradenotfree]

First woman approved as head of Massachusetts high court

BOSTON (AP) — Justice Margaret Marshall was elevated to chief justice of Massachusetts' highest court Wednesday, becoming the first woman to head the nation's oldest appellate court.

Ms. Marshall, a former chief counsel at Harvard University, overcame charges of anti-Catholic bias to win a 6-3 confirmation vote by the Governor's Council, which votes on nominations by the governor.

"1 follow in the footsteps of giants," Ms. Marshall said. "1 do so with humility, and with a deep commitment to the rule of law."

Ms. Marshall, 55, a native of South Africa,

was appointed an associate justice of the Supreme Judicial Court in 1996. She was at Harvard at the time and had previously been in private practice.

Her nomination to head the 307-year-old court was marred when Cardinal Bernard Law raised concerns that she harbored anti-Catholic bias.

Law, who heads the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, wrote last month to Gov. Paul Cellucci and said Ms. Marshall was "open to serious charges of anti-Catholicism."

He cited an incident in which Ms. Marshall, while at Harvard, chastised a professor who had used university stationery for a personal note with an anti-abortion message.

Catholic groups also feared she could not be impartial on abortion cases because she once served on an abortion clinic's board of trustees. Ms. Marshall denied her personal views would affect her role as jurist.

Law later retracted his complaint after speaking with Ms. Marshall, who is Protestant. "She gave me her assurance that she was not anti-Catholic," he said, "and I have absolutely no reason to not accept her word on that."

Is Justice Margaret Marshall a U.S Citizens?

[No Dems 2004]

Any word on what President Bush has to say about this abominable decision?

I heard that the state's Republican Governor Mitt Romney condemned the decision, saying marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

[kingu]

It seems like people have fallen into the trap of thinking that the only way to solve judicial fiat is to change the founding documents. The people of California had a solution for judicial fiat, the same solution we had for the fiat by the former Governor. It is called a recall.

This is, as everyone is fond of repeating, a liberal state. Yet when the California Supreme Court used its power to effectively end the death penalty in California, the people stood up and kicked the responsible parties out of their judicial robes.

If anything, the only modification needed in Massachusetts is the implimentation of recall legislation that would also affect the judicial branch.

As for modifying the Constitution of the United States to outline what every dictionary already defines I think that is not needed. Instead, we should regain control of our courts. Impeach the federal judges who are using their seats on the bench to write laws instead of interpreting them.

[philman_36]

We need a US Constitutional Amendment to save us from activist courts who assult religion and basic family values.
Constitutional Amendments are for how the government is supposed to operate, not how people are supposed to operate.
Are we now in the position where "rights" have to be specifically defined with a Constitutional Amendment?
I sure hope not 'cause that monkey barrel is a straight shot to hell in a handbasket for this nation.

The bull is being led around by a nose ring and doesn't mind at all!

[Protagoras]

No thanks. Marriage is not a federal matter. We don't need more big government involvement in these local matters.

[familyofman]

My marriage of 33+ years does not need to be "protected" by a constitutional ammendment - thank you. For all those who have been married only once, faithful, and in good standing with all your vows - don't need protection. Only those who are unsure of themselves and their relationship need protection.

[kegler4]

It's kind of frightening to find "conservatives" actually proposing a Constitutional amendment to regulate something like marriage. And even worse to find some of those conservatives admitting it's not really right but saying we should do it anyway to try to pick up some Senate seats. That's a plan worthy of Bill Clinton, I'd say.

[NeoCaveman]

If FR is a sample of the right half of the political spectrum, then the ammendment stands no chance I am sorry to say. Look at how your post has attracted so many "conservatives" who are social liberals like moths to a flame. The culture is doomed.

[archy]

Now that the Mass. Supreme Court has acted to force the legislature to adopt gay marriage, the time is now for Republicans to act to save this most basic institution of this country. We need a US Constitutional Amendment to save us from activist courts who assult religion and basic family values. The public will be outraged over this and the GOP must capitolize on it. The GOP must put the Democrats in a bind. Oppose the Amendment and lose their base, or support it and expose themselves as the radicals they are.

Now is the time to act. Put this issue at the forefront for the next election. Don't just make it an issue, make it a real topic with real Amendments that are gonna be passed.

Constitutionally, we do owe it to our founding fathers to utilize the remedies they left for us before we go tinkering with the patchwork of another constitutional amendment.

I don't deny either that the goal is worthy, or that it's likely that the anthill people will likely try to subvert or twist what's left of the Constitution to achieve their goals, then cast it aside, and that so far as pragmatism goes, an amendment might be the better choice.

But if we do not have the political muscle to use those constitutional remedies specified, then we likely won't manage an amendment either.

-archy-/-

[Michael81Dus]

Hehe, folks, what you call for the US constitution - we already have. Marriage and family are protected by the Basic Law here. Though, gays and lesbians may form a "partnership for life" at a local authority, and they´re equal in taxes etc to married people. But at least, they can´t call it "wedding" or "marriage".

[biblewonk]

Now that the Mass. Supreme Court has acted to force the legislature to adopt gay marriage, the time is now for Republicans to act to save this most basic institution of this country. We need a US Constitutional Amendment to save us from activist courts who assult religion and basic family values. The public will be outraged over this and the GOP must capitolize on it. The GOP must put the Democrats in a bind. Oppose the Amendment and lose their base, or support it and expose themselves as the radicals they are.

Absolutely right and if they don't, I'll probably stay home in 04.

[ellery]

The only Constitutional Amendment I would support in this area is one that explicitly designates all "culture war" issues like this to the states (basically a restatement of amendment 10).

[NMC EXP]

I just read Article I, Section 8 again and I do not see the power to regulate marriage among those enumerated.

Here is a radical idea for you: Convince state governments to stop licensing marriages entirely. The marriage license is a state sanction and makes marriage a privilege which can be defined and granted only by the state.

Get government out of it a make it a church matter. Atheists can visit a lawyer and write a contract.

Regards

J.R.