Posted on 10/19/2004 5:48:33 PM PDT by Cracker72
BOSTON - The author of the landmark gay marriage decision that triggered political backlash across the country warned Tuesday against efforts to tamper with the independent judiciary system.
Margaret Marshall, chief justice of the state's Supreme Judicial Court, told a gathering of business leaders that she welcomed scrutiny and criticism of the court's decision, but she decried attempts - here and elsewhere - to subject judges to elections.
``Our system has worked for 200 years, where you have independent judges who are not beholden to the elective public,'' Marshall said. ``I know that sometimes seems controversial, but it has worked.''
In a rare public appearance, Marshall also told the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce that ``overheated factionalism is exerting tremendous pressure'' on the nation's founding ideals.
``Judges do become the focus of attack politics,'' she said. ``But it would be foolish, in my judgment, to heed the voices of those who would curtail a judge's independence.''
The high court legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts last November in a 4-3 decision written by Marshall. The first weddings took place on May 17.
The ruling prompted some state lawmakers in Massachusetts called for the election of state judges. A constitutional amendment that would have required judges to be elected was not voted on this session.
Gov. Mitt Romney [related, bio], who adamantly opposes gay marriage, and other conservative politicians across the country have repeatedly used the case to denounce ``activist judges,'' particularly during this political season.
Marshall said Romney, like any other citizen, is entitled to exercise his First Amendment rights to express his opinion.
``I welcome scrutiny of the decisions of the court,'' Marshall said. ``But there's good criticism and there's bad criticism.''
The governor's spokesman said Romney does not support the election of judges and is not aware of any serious effort to change the appointment process.
``The governor believes the process works well so long as the judges appointed do not legislate or assume for themselves the power of legislating,'' Romney communications director Eric Fehrnstrom said.
During her remarks, however, Marshall described how the state's constitution, upon which the U.S. Constitution was based, created for the first time a judiciary that was not beholden to the legislative body.
``Their function now would be to decide each case solely on the rule of law, and only the rule of law,'' Marshall said.
Marshall never specifically mentioned gay marriage during her speech or the question-and-answer that followed. When asked about the national uproar over the decision, she said she was aware that some cases attract more interest than others but that they all received the same level of consideration from the court.
``I decide the case, the justices decide the case, and the next day the next case is just as important to those litigants,'' Marshall said.
Since the decision, Marshall's name and words have become a potent symbol on both sides of the debate. Some gay marriage opponents have tried to have Marshall and the three other justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage removed from the court through an elaborate process, but the movement does not appear to have widespread support. And many gay couples have incorporated words from her ruling into their marriage ceremonies.
Born and educated in South Africa, Marshall emigrated to the United States in the 1960s. She was appointed to the Supreme Judicial Court in 1996 after four years as general counsel to Harvard University.
She became the first immigrant and first woman to lead the state's highest court in 1999 and is married to former New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis.
( © Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. )
is married to former New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis
She's also another white African-American like you know who.
It is too late.
The liberals have politicized it long ago.
What is the good Judge's solution to that?
The Judiciary branch needs a flush..
Further.. no more lifetime appointments.. that's total BS.
She gives us gay marriage, and then she defends the decision with an appeal to TRADITION!!!!
When judges make the decision to create laws by decree and void laws written by the legislature and signed by the govenor or the Congress and signed by the President, then its time to REMOVE those judges. We are suppose to be a nation of laws. Not a nation of judical decrees. If we want a nation of judical decrees, why do we need a Congress (legislature) and President (governors)? We just go out and find a judge to issue the decree we want.
``Our system has worked for 200 years, where you have independent judges who are not beholden to the elective public,'' Marshall said. ``I know that sometimes seems controversial, but it has worked.''
Who does this wench think she is? "not beholden to the elective public?". That is insane. Even if she is appointed, it is by an elected person. What arrogance. She should be thrown of the bench immediately. The libs and hippies have made a mockery of our Constitution.
Go back to South Africa, Margaret. You and your "hateful" writer husband are scarey folks.
Anthony Lewis must have retired from the NYT, because I never see or hear of him anymore; but he used to write extremely liberal columns in which he ALWAYS characterized conservatives as hateful and meanspirited.
vaudine
My biggest complaint is judges who are appointed for life with no means of replacing them. Our laws need to be ammended to allow for replacement of judges who stop interpreting the laws but start creating laws to support their personal political opinion.
What a good idea! .... to subject judges to elections!
Independent judiciary my @$$!!! Running wild is more like it!
We don't elect judges in Nebraska. However, we do vote to retain them. We had a State Supreme court that was getting too leftward about 15-20 years ago. We voted OUT one of the Supremes and the rest changed their way or retired before they faced a retention vote. Works for me.
We elect judges in Texas. It's great.
It works only if and when people of the highest integrity are appointed, just like the origin of the politician. That ideology has long passed and that is why Marshall, Gensburg, Feltzer et al are now judges. The system is broken.
Sorry, Margaret, your reasoning doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
Which is to say, "..any criticism of me is bad criticism, and if you agree with me, your criticism is constructive!". Typical police-state liberal.
SFS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.