Mass. Chief Justice Denounces Attempts To Tie Judges Hands

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/10/101904massJudge.htm

Margaret Marshall, who wrote the landmark ruling that allowed same-sex couples to marry in Massachusetts Tuesday warned that efforts to tamper with the independent judiciary system could begin a trend that would erode democracy.

Marshall, Chief Justice of Massachusetts's highest court, did not specifically mention gay marriage in her speech to the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, but her message was clear.

"Our system has worked for 200 years, where you have independent judges who are not beholden to the elective public. I know that sometimes seems controversial, but it has worked," Marshall said.


only controversial who want the courts to uphold their bigotry and hate

[sidpleasant]

1. Chief Justice Marshall was appointed by a REPUBLICAN

Six of the seven so - called "liberal activist" justices on the MA Supreme Judicicial Court were appointed by REPUBLICANS, a fact conveniently overlooked by GOP politicians who denounce the court's ruling legalizing gay marriage. Listed below are the Court’s members and who appointed them.

Chief Justice Marshall
Appointed 1996 by Republican William F. Weld. Named chief justice by by then Republican Governor, and current Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci.

Justice Cordy
Appointed February, 2001 by Republican Governor Paul Cellucci.

Justine Cowin
Appointed 1999 by

Justice Ireland
Appointed 1997 by the Republican Governor William F. Weld

Justice Sosman
Appointed 2000 by the Republican Governor Paul Cellucci.

Justice Spina
Appointed October 1999 by the Republican Governor Paul Cellucci.

Justice Greany
Appointed 1989 by the Democratic Governor Michael Dukakis.

[TaleWgnDg]

5. to answer your question . . .

"Honorable Judith A. Cowin, Associate Justice, was born in Boston, Massachusetts, on April 29, 1942. A graduate of Wellesley College, she received her J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1970. From 1971 to 1972, she served as assistant legal counsel to the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health. From 1972 to 1979, she was legal counsel for the Office of the Chief Justice of the District Court. She was an Assistant District Attorney in Norfolk County from 1979 to 1991, prosecuting jury-of-six cases from 1979 to 1980 and then felony cases in the Superior Court from 1980 to 1991. She was also a clinical field supervisor for Harvard Law School in 1980. In 1991, she was appointed an Associate Justice of the Superior Court, where she served until Governor Paul Cellucci appointed her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court in October, 1999."


http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/cowin.html

and for a SCJ "bio" of the remaining Justices, go to:

http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/justices.html

[TaleWgnDg]

2. Ya gotta LUV Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court . . .

Chief Justice Margaret Marshall . . . she's stood up to the righwingnut Massachusetts House Speaker Thomas Finneran and his lackeys . . . Finneran left w/ all his vitriol and angst against the appointed bench in Massachusetts!! (btw, our federal bench was modeled after John Adams' Massachusetts constitution and bench)

[TaleWgnDg]

3. dup

[JolietDem]

4. Smiles

Makes me happy that these judges recognize the fundamental humanity of people...what sickens me most about the Mary Cheny conflagration is how many Repug commentators compare what Kerry said to calling someone's daughter a drunk or a wino or a slut...even "mainstream" ones...on that ridiculous blog-o'crap The Corner on NRO, I saw all of these slurs and more... I think I even saw a nasty comment about Elizabeth Edwards' weight from some "Commentator" who should be kicked in the GOOCH...gosh, I hate these people...

[TaleWgnDg]

6. yup . . . . . . . . (and welcome to DU, JolietDem) . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

[Supersedeas]

7. * believes minority rights are WAY WAY overrated

[Yunaleska]

8. We need independent courts

There are too many bigots in this nation unfortunately. Always have been.

Having a branch on government largely independent of the people (but still checked by the other two branches that do answer to the people) is a great system. Can you imagine if a SCOTUS justice was elected every 4 years, and they had to keep that in mind when they were hearing Brown V. the Board? Not to mention countless other civil rights cases.

Remember courts are supposed to decide what is just. NOT answer to the mob outside. In order to do this they have to be free of influences such as "What ruling would help me get elected again?". The founders were VERY wise when deciding how long judges would serve. They were also wise to constitutionally prohibit the congress from lowering a judges pay. (to prevent a "If you rule this way see how long you can be a judge making 2 cents a year" situation)

[Bandit]

9. I think judges should be beholden to the elective public

It is when they are appointed by partisans that we appear to have problems. If the people don't like the way they are judging cases they can vote them out. Once they are appointed by a partisan they can not be removed unless they are impeached which is very drastic. But what do I know? :shrug:

[Yunaleska]

10. Wow great idea

Then the Klan could have elected the justices on the SCOTUS during the civil rights movement.

[Bandit]

15. Have you never voted for a judge?

Every election I get the opportunity to vote for state and district judges. If it is good enough for our states why isn't it good enough for our country. Also I doubt very much the KKK could have more influence than the general public.

[Yunaleska]

22. You know

There are lower court positions that ARE voted for, true. However, the founders set up the federal courts the way they did for a reason. Obviously that reason is lost on you, and I suppose if you haven't picked it up yet some post on a message board isn't going to do much for you.

"Also I doubt very much the KKK could have more influence than the general public"

You obviously have NO idea how much influence the KKK had in some states during the civil rights movement. NO idea. Back then in several states they owned every thing from police to members of the legislature and, yes, even judges. Not only that, they worked tirelessly to see to it that non-whites couldn't vote regardless of the law. By lethal force is necessary.

If you think they would have allowed african americans to vote in a non-racist SCOTUS justice then you have absolutely NO CLUE what african americans went through in this nation, nor how much influence the racists had at several points in our history.

[Lexingtonian]

17. oh goodie

I dunno about your argument. In my state they have a way of appointing sane and well qualified judges- who are wiser than, and act generally in the best interest of, the people of the state. In a lot of states the appointment process is badly skewed, but whether popular elections improves things is a tough call. I think Roy Moore was elected, in fact.

Doesn't popular election of the judges just mean that the political class of a state is corrupt? And, often as not, the judges are part of it? Texas courts sound horrible.

[happyslug]

11. It may be the conspiracy nut in me but ....

I still think the Massachusetts Court Decision was part of a Republican plan to win this election. All but one of the Judges who made the decision was appointed by the GOP (With the lone Democratic appointed and longest sitting Judge being appointed by Dukalis in 1987). Conspiracy looks like a better answer for the Decision of the Massachusetts's Court than Constitutional Rights given the previous history of Homosexual marriage and the Courts.

When I was in Law school in the late 1980s Same Sex Marriage was being discussed but any Constitutional Attacks on the ban on Homosexual marriages was viewed moot. What I mean is that while on its face a State's decision to ban Same Sex marriage can be viewed as sexual discrimination (i.e. why can a man not marry a man when he can marry a woman?). The better view is that the state is banning anyone from marrying anyone but the opposite sex, and thus NOT sexual discrimination. Thus attacks on grounds of Sexual Discrimination ended in failure on both the State and Federal Levels.

Now the present set of Attacks on laws against Homosexual Marriages is based on the concept of "Equal Protection of the Law". Such clauses have been in the Federal and State Constitution since the Civil War (In the Federal Constitution since the passage of the Bill of Rights, through prior to the Civil War Amendments NOT applicable to the States).

The problem with such Equal Protection of the law is defining what is Equal Protection of the law. It is NOT equal protection for when these laws where passed Women had less rights than men and these amendments did NOT change those laws. Equal Protection of the Law also does not require people to be treated the same provided the state has some "rational" reason for the different treatment. In the economic field, Equal Protection of the Law Clauses were used after the Civil War to mean States had to treat Corporations the same as Real people. This continued till the Great Depression when the Courts accepted that it can NOT set economic policy, economic policy must be set by Congress and the State Legislatures. The Court adopted a policy of upholding the economic policies of Congress and the States if such policy had a "Rational" basis for for such a policy (and the Courts always found some sort of "Rational Basis").

In non-economic areas the court appear to adopt the same rule unless it conflicted with another constitutional issue (For example when Colorado Voters passed their Anti-Homosexual Rights Bill, the Court declared it unconstitutional for it prohibited a group of people from petitioning their local and state Government NOT that Homosexuals should be treated equal to Heterosexuals).

Thus the problem with Same Sex marriage AS BEING RULED TO BE A VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW. The Courts have long ruled that any rational reason to uphold a law is valid unless such law interferes with some right under the Constitution. Marriage as a legal act, was part of the Common Law. As a Rule the Courts have a tendency to rule that the Common Law is rational (based on the fact the Rule had existed for Centuries and as such had to have had some "Rational" reason for it or the Common Law Courts, Parliament the US Congress or the State Legislature would have changed it).

Given the above and the long history of Marriage being between two people of the Opposite Sex, I do not see how the Massachusetts Courts would rule that ban on Homosexual Marriage violates Equal Protection of the Law unless someone wanted it to be a divisive wedge issue in this political Campaign. Furtherance of my view can be seen in how fast the Republicans attacked Kerry when he even mentioned that Cheney's Daughter was a Lesbian.

People would be less concern about the "Homosexual Agenda" if the Massachusetts Court had not made the ruling it had done. Many of the people who will vote for the GOP November 2 will vote on this imaginary issue and against their own economic benefits. Prior to this decision the Similar Decision by The Hawaii Court and Vermont Court had been undone by their State Legislature do to the political harm such decision were causing (and those Supreme Court deferred their decision till the State Legislature acted thus killing Homosexual Marriages in those two Jurisdiction).

The Easy solution for the Court would be to defer to the State Legislature. Sooner or later the State Legislature will have to vote for or against it anyway so WHY rule the way their did? Many State Legislators would vote for a Constitutional Amendment to end the practice (even if they are for same sex marriage) just to avoid the political heat (This is what happened in Hawaii and Vermont). Thus you have a good chance that the law will be only the law for a few years at most.

Now, given the coverage of the Decision (and the stupid way the Massachusetts legislature tried to repeal it) smacks of some sort of attempt to use Homosexual Marriage as a Wedge Issue NOT to treat Homosexuals equal under the law. The GOP have been using the "Homosexual Agenda" as wedge issue for at least ten years and the Democrats have been trying to avoid the issue for at least as long.
The Democrats know you can NOT do Social Reform unless the vast Majority of American are for it (During the 1950s most American supported Equal Rights to Blacks even while a vocal Minority opposed it). This is true of ANY law, most people must support it for it to work (For example Prohibition, the majority of American supported Prohibition but did not want to spend the money to enforce it, thus then the lack of enforcement lead to increase crime the majority turned to repeal).

Some time in the Future we may see Homosexual marriage, but only if the Majority of American are willing to accept it. I do not See that level of Acceptance at the present time. Neither does the GOP which is why they are using Homosexual Marriage as a Wedge issue and why it looks suspicious to me that all but one of the Judges that made the decision was appointed by a GOP Governor.

[Yunaleska]

13. WTF?

"When I was in Law school in the late 1980s Same Sex Marriage was being discussed but any Constitutional Attacks on the ban on Homosexual marriages was viewed moot. What I mean is that while on its face a State's decision to ban Same Sex marriage can be viewed as sexual discrimination (i.e. why can a man not marry a man when he can marry a woman?). The better view is that the state is banning anyone from marrying anyone but the opposite sex, and thus NOT sexual discrimination. Thus attacks on grounds of Sexual Discrimination ended in failure on both the State and Federal Levels."

Try using this logic with race instead of sex and try to figure out the flaw in your logic.

[happyslug]

18. You are confusing the 1964 Civil Rights Act with the 14th Amendment

Given the nature of the history of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments the Courts have always viewed discrimination based on race as violating the US Constitution. These amendments were designed to protect blacks and to have both the state and Federal Government treat Blacks the same as Whites.

Now the Equal Protection Clause has been used beyond the area of race but the Court have long ruled that "Classification" is part of the Legislative process and as such does not violate "Equal Protection" provided there is some "rational" justification for the Difference. Almost any rational will do just as long as everyone is treated "equal".

Now you may say what about Sex discrimination, isn't that illegal? Under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause the answer is NO. The Courts have long ruled that the states can pass any type of Discrimination based on one's sex under the 14th Amendment.

Now under the 1964 Civil Rights Act one can not discriminate based on someones's sex, but the Civil Rights Act is a STATUTORY protection Not Constitutional protection. Thus it is the product of the LEGISLATURE not the Courts.

Thus my point, if this had been a Federal Case (and in most other states), the Court would have ruled under the Constitution the Equal Protection of the Law Clause is satisfied with the fact the law restrict people to only marry people of the opposite sex. The "Rational" reason can be that is how the law has always been and as such permitted under the Constitutionals Equal Protection of the law Clause (With some wording the State Legislature could change this if it wished).

The above may be unfair, but it is proper constitutional interpretations as the Courts have interpreted the Equal Protection Clause since the Civil War.

Anyway my point was NOT to explain Constitutional Law but to ask why did the Massachusetts Court decide NOT to follow the Traditional Constitutional Law rules as to interpreting Equal Protection of the Law Clauses and common law rules of law? The Court may have wanted to help Homosexuals to marry, but I also suspect it was part of a plan to use homosexual marriage as a wedge issue in this and other elections (Just like the GOP used race in the 1960s, 70s and 80s). Remember the present leadership of the GOP will do anything to win and stay in power. That was my point NOT whether Homosexuals should be permitted to marry.

[Yunaleska]

20. Hmm...

"Anyway my point was NOT to explain Constitutional Law but to ask why did the Massachusetts Court decide NOT to follow the Traditional Constitutional Law rules as to interpreting Equal Protection of the Law Clauses and common law rules of law? "

Perhaps because they were going on the MA State constitution rather than the US constitution?

[Lexingtonian]

16. Moral courage isn't extinct

The problem with such Equal Protection of the law is defining what is Equal Protection of the law. It is NOT equal protection for when these laws where passed Women had less rights than men and these amendments did NOT change those laws. Equal Protection of the Law also does not require people to be treated the same provided the state has some "rational" reason for the different treatment.

The first ~75 years of the original Colonies was about getting rid of theocracy (the 1st Amendment), the second 75 about getting rid of monarchy (the Constitution proper), the first 75 years of the U.S.A. went into getting rid of slavery (13th Amendment), the 75 years between the Civil War and WW2 went into suffrage (enforcing the 15th Amendment). The past 65 years have gone into enforcing- making an earnest of- the 14th Amendment via the minority Civil Rights movement (e.g. the CRA of 1964 is built on the 14th), feminist politics, and gay rights politics. Everyone knows the 14th is the site of historical battle in this era- look at the perverse way the USSC tried to damage it in Bush v. Gore....

Your problem is that you were taught the 'conservative' take on the 14th, which is that extending it is fraught with such great peril that it shouldn't even be attempted. There is also this curious idea you seem to have faith in that the Common Law was perfected in its time and is perfected now. Additionally, you lump the Massachusetts constitutional language- it's a Nondiscrimination Clause- with Equal Protection; while they seem equivalent, nondiscrimination is a far more solid notion legal notion and much more difficult to subvert as an argument point than 'equality' admixed with 'rational standards'.

The real problem is for the Supreme Judicial Court was whether to define legal marriage as a right or as a privilege. If it's a right, there is little argument whether the Nondiscrimination Clause has to be applied. So the key argument was about the qualifications for legal marriage. Legal marriage exists in order to provide rights to children and spouses when calamity or conflict occur, and so the issue argued before the SJC was about the quality of child raising (not much about spousal duties) by gay couples forming, or not forming, a compelling distinction demanding a difference in rational treatment.

The Easy solution for the Court would be to defer to the State Legislature. Sooner or later the State Legislature will have to vote for or against it anyway so WHY rule the way their did?

Justice delayed is justice denied- the plaintiffs' injuries do matter. And, while it may be alien to your experience in the law, some courts believe they have a public duty to provide a clear statement of what they consider moral and right and credible/discredited in things that are relatively important but very confused in the public discourse. Somebody has to lead if there is to be justice done- and who else is more qualified, more called upon?

It's called moral courage- and just because courts in Hawai'i and in Vermont didn't believe the time or occasion to act progressively on this particular issue had come doesn't mean the Massachusetts court had to agree. Yes, it was all going to be addressed by the political process anyway, but that's an excuse rather than a reason.

As Andrew Johnson once said, a man with courage can be a majority. Someone with moral stature has to stand up and say: This is Right to do, after weighing them carefully I find the arguments against it untenable. If the standard you advocate- let mediocrity and cowardice prevail- were the norm then people would never have fought about slavery: slaves were so uneducated and so unprepared for life outside slavery in the South in 1860 that it would have been far easier to continue it for another generation or two. But evils can only be bourn for so long by the morally sensitive and courageous; in 1860 the economic rationale for slavery was diminishing but the South insisted on it ever more fervently because its increasingly retrogressive- hierarchical/feudal- social system made the existence of an underclass- or two, or three- increasingly necessary.

Some time in the Future we may see Homosexual marriage, but only if the Majority of American are willing to accept it. I do not See that level of Acceptance at the present time.

I don't know where you live or what your social circle and horizons are, but you might want to look at the New York Times's bimonthly polling on this and other issues. Presently, Civil Unions for gay couples have ~60% support among voters nationally and is increasing at a rate of 1% per month. Marriage for gay couples has ~30% support and is increasing at ~0.5% a month.

That is the basis for the behavior and wierd politics by Bush at the debates and in Congress on gay marriage. Civil Unions is the consensus position in the American electorate and Gay Marriage is 2-3 years from majority acceptance.

[happyslug]

19. My Con-law teacher was very liberal

He started his Con-Law case with Dred Scott for All Civil Rights Law derived directly or indirectly from the Dred Scott Decision.

Furthermore he disliked the three different tests the Supreme Court had adopted for Discrimination (The Strict test for Race, the Rational test for anything else and the "Intermediate test" for Sex discrimination). While he disliked them he had to teach them to us for there are the law of the land. You have to learn the law as it IS not what you want it to be.

Right now there is NO movement in any LEGISLATURE to permit Homosexual Marriages. This is unlike the late 1950 and early 1960s where you saw various states pass Civil Rights act (Except in the South) and Civil Rights law introduced into the Federal House and Senate every year WITH a chance of passing (People introduce bills all the time with no hope to pass them but just to show their supporters they doing "something", thus the test is NOT introduction of bills but what chance does the bill have in getting to the floor and passing?).

I just do not see such movement as to Homosexual marriage (or even Civil Unions). Some people strongly want Homosexuals to have the right to marry but more people oppose that right (and the majority of people may say they want Homosexuals to have the right to marry but the same majority tend to give other legislation higher priority).

Thus you are right about the Man with Courage, but men with Courage can be for both good and bad things. I fear, that at the present time, there are more "Men with Courage" that oppose homosexual marriage/Civil Unions, than there are "Men with Courage" the support Homosexual marriage/Civil Unions.

Anyway, the point of my thread was NOT if Homosexuals should have the rights to marry, but whether the decision of the Court was suspicious in its decision. I just find its strange that a Court made up of Judges (except one) appointed by Republicans would make this decision as opposed to deferring to the legislature. Traditionally the GOP have wanted the court to deferred to the Legislature and when a GOP controlled Court comes to a case where they could do so with ease why did they not? It is just suspicious to me.

[Yunaleska]

21. ....

"Right now there is NO movement in any LEGISLATURE to permit Homosexual Marriages. "

The hell you say? That may be - but there are movements in state legislatures to gurantee other civil rights and protections to LGBT people. As far as marriage - a new law is coming in to effect in California that will recognize same sex couples and provide near equal marriage rights. Granted, it is not "marriage" - yet it is a measure by the legislature to grant same sex couples increased partnership rights.

"Anyway, the point of my thread was NOT if Homosexuals should have the rights to marry, but whether the decision of the Court was suspicious in its decision."

No, it was not. Guess what? This case and ruling came about because citizens exercised their RIGHT to bring a complaint before the court. The court heard their complaint and ruled in the manner it saw fit. The only way this would be a GOP conspiracy would be if the citizens who brought this complaint were actually part of a grand republican conspiracy. I suppose you have evidence of this?

"I just find its strange that a Court made up of Judges (except one) appointed by Republicans would make this decision as opposed to deferring to the legislature."

I find it odd you find that strange. Referring matters from the courts for the legislature to decide rather than the court is an unusual scenario.

"Traditionally the GOP have wanted the court to deferred to the Legislature and when a GOP controlled Court comes to a case where they could do so with ease why did they not?"

I suggest you learn something about the courts. A judge is NOT member of a legislature. A judge is NOT "controlled" by ANY party. In fact, if a party attempted to tell a judge how to rule in most states that would be a felony. It is NOT appropriate for a judge to be told how to rule based on what 1. A common citizen may desire 2. What a political party may desire or 3. What a member of the executive or legislative branch may desire.

[Lexingtonian]

23. It's Massachusetts, and the timing followed Lawrence v. Texas

While he disliked them he had to teach them to us for there are the law of the land. You have to learn the law as it IS not what you want it to be.

Yes, but the way law is interpreted changes. You propose that the interpretations are static, and that the apparatus you were taught- which largely existed as jurisprudence at the time exactly because it permitted rationales for on-it-face indefensible governmental discrimination- is adequate. Look at the change in the way the USSC decided Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and it decided Lawrence v. Texas (2003) given facts that were fundamentally the same. Yes, you as lawyers in training were taught the way the law worked in that realm at that time, for very practical reasons. But the assumption that it would never change, that a law tasked to provide Equal Protection would never be fully enforced for certain groups of people clearly discriminated against- that seems wierdly hopeless and a bit naive. But that would not have been unusual as an attitude in the late Seventies, with the building conservative backlash.

Right now there is NO movement in any LEGISLATURE to permit Homosexual Marriages.

Every legislature saw what happened to the Vermont legislature in 2001-02 after legalizing civil unions there. They don't want to touch gay marriage issues, even if they privately agree with it. Here in Massachusetts the legislature passed a gay marriage barring amendment proposal in March despite about 2/3 of the individual legislators privately saying they considered gay marriage more or less right and reasonable. They were afraid of their many elderly voters, who are as bad on it as they are on racial issues. (You try to get a serious bill on minority civil rights through any state legislature today- it's being tried on things like the disenfranchising of felons of the vote permanently- and you'll be surprised in a very unhappy sort of way at why they won't let it through.)

After Massachusetts legalized gay marriage there was an effort to get other states to sign on. Basically the process went like this: couple goes to town hall to get certification of their Massachusetts certificate. Clerk balks and calls in supervisory people. Supervisory people either have a DoM law on the books or don't, but ultimately they conclude they don't know what the law really permits. It goes up the chain and ends up at the state Attorney General's office. The state Attorney General in turn considers it all, but it's not exactly his/hers to decide. Attorney General offers an opinion about current state law and makes it public, but refers the matter to the state courts to decide- as the primary arbitors of what the law says and means. It ends up with the state's Supreme Court. The state legislature generally ducks out of the issue as best as it can- maintains perfect silence- and discourages the filing of bills addressing the matter one way or the other- it punts over to the state Supreme Court too. State legislatures exist to fight about spending, they never feel too competent about any social issues and never really take the lead on them, despite appearances.

In short: every major player in the American political scene thinks gay marriage is coming and legally justifiable but no one in particular wants to pay a political price for it to the hordes of the uncouth (some see opportunity to exploit them, though) unless their career is over anyway, and so it ends up that state Supreme Courts are forced to do the heavy lifting and take the backlash.

And I'm having some trouble with your constant use of the term "homosexual marriage". You don't use "missionary position marriage" or "heterosexual marriage" in everyday conversation, do you? What would you call a marriage between two bisexual people of opposite gender- 'bisexual marriage'? "Gay" is more or less the conventional distinguishing prefix, vaguely cultural in reference, or "same sex" or "same gender". I'm not trying to be PC, it's just that refering to a form of marriage by an adjectival rather than a noun-ish label for the people within it bothers me a little bit.

As for the "suspicious" timing of the Goodridge case and verdict, it has mostly to do with people anticipating the U.S. Supreme Court's verdict in Lawrence v. Texas. (It would have been absurd to decide it any other way, even the nutcase Texas Supreme Court was too embarrassed to render a verdict in the appeal brought to them.) In fact, the two courts and case workers were extremely aware of each other- Scalia moans in June in his minority opinion that the majority verdict in Lawrence helps open the way to gay marriage, which he anticipates Massachusetts's SJC will legalize in the next few months. Margaret Marshall uses the majority opinion in Lawrence in her (majority) opinion in Goodridge, rendered in November, just as Scalia anticipated.

[Lexingtonian]

12. right she is

Those couple of months there, January to June, were pretty hard on her. The local press tried to get a comment on the game from her, but she simply said that everything she had to say on the matter was in her majority opinion.

With Finneran gone and the polls running against ratification, the Travaglini-Lees proposed state constitutional amendment is considered dead in the Massachusetts state legislature. Not 100%, but close to it. The last pollings, in July, had support at 45% and dropping at a rate of at least 3% a month (5% in some).

The last direct challenge of the Goodridge verdict is being appealed to the USSC as Largess v. SJC. There is no reasonable way it can be given certiorari (i.e. accepted for a hearing) but, like everything else in this fight, we won't hear of a decision on that before November 3.

What's that saying, sit on the river bank long enough and you'll see the corpses of your enemies float downstream? It's only been eleven months, but I suspect a month from now people will be amazed that the Goodridge ruling is merely a year old- it feels more established than that already- and has in a mere year, despite the extent of controversy and political hay-making, broken all the attempts to reverse it.

Which gets us to the '1913 statute' and the Cote-Whitacre case, but that's for early next year....

[MaineDem]

14. Justice Marshall grew up in South Africa

She was active in the anti-aparteid movement back in the 60s (I think?) as a student. She has a very interesting background.