Speaker Finneran Is Responsible for Slowing Vote on “Removal” of Judge Marshall

     The attempt to prevent a vote on the Removal of Justice Marshall is apparently coming from the highest leaders of the Democratic Party, including Speaker Thomas Finneran, says Sally Pawlick, President of Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage.

     “Why?” she asks. “There couldn’t be a more serious charge against a judge than agreeing with a plaintiff ahead-of-time as to how a case would be decided.”

     That’s only one of the four charges against Marshall who assured Atty. Mary Bonauto that she would hold for Bonauto if the lawyer filed her lawsuit about homosexual marriage in a Massachusetts court. The three judges who went along with Marshall have also been indicted.

     Pawlick compares this latest scandal with what happened in 2002.

     “When our Constitution was broken by the Legislature on July 17, 2002, which was the day they refused to vote on our ‘Protection of Marriage’ Amendment, we were assured that Speaker Finneran was doing everything he could to see that it passed. We were told that by the Mass. Catholic Conference and the Mass. Family Institute, upon whom we were relying to do all the lobbying for the Amendment, which would have forbidden the SJC from imposing homosexual marriage or civil unions.

     “But when the President of the Senate, Tom Birmingham, refused to allow the legislators to vote on the measure, the Speaker didn’t say a word. Although Finneran voted against the proposal to illegally kill the measure, he didn’t show any leadership and didn’t decry what we had all just witnessed.

     “We gave him the benefit of the doubt and continued to believe in him, but what we have seen this year makes it almost impossible to continue to do so. He is in total charge of the House. He can’t blame anyone except himself.

     “He appears to be a nice, honorable person, but we have to judge him by his actions, not by his personality. The same is true of his top lieutenants in the House.

     ”Certainly Finneran is not in love with Marshall. They do not like each other. What could be causing him to protect her except for money that is flowing from somewhere to the Democratic Party?”

     Just Another Piece of Legislation?

      Pawlick says that Finneran has allowed the Resolution from Rep. Emile Goguen (D-Fitchburg) to Remove Marshall to be treated as just “another piece of legislation,” instead of a provision under the Constitution.

     “This recalls 2002, when no one was allowed to vote. The same thing is happening again this year as the leadership is fighting to not allow a vote on Goguen’s Resolution. Again, we have to ask, ‘Why’? There was a hasty, secret ‘meeting’ of the House Rules Committee called late Wednesday afternoon last week because of the tremendous pressure on them, but it was totally illegal because all such meetings must be in public. They didn’t bother with any of that. They even forced Goguen to leave the room, despite his objections.

     “This ‘meeting’ on Wednesday was undoubtedly the first ‘meeting’ that has been held in years. It was so strange that the members didn’t know what they were supposed to do. They were honestly amazed to be informed by us that they were required to hold public meetings regularly and minutes must be taken for public inspection. Instead, the Chairman has made all the decisions himself in recent years, sometimes talking privately with some members. This is totally illegal and the fact that it is happening cannot be unknown to the leadership, including Finneran. It must also be known by some of the ‘reformers,’ libertarians and others, who constantly tell us that social conservatives are irrelevant to the process as long as our taxes are low and business is prospering. But since when are morality, decency and honor unimportant to a democracy?”

     Pawlick says they are now being told confidentially that perhaps Marshall might be removed, but not the other judges, even though John Greaney has been a judge for close to thirty years and has led the attack almost more than Marshall. Pawlick says the other two judges have either been asleep or complicit in what has happened.

     “Some say we cannot remove Roderick Ireland because he is black,” Pawlick continues. “What an insult to black people to say that Ireland must be held to a lower standard because of the color of his skin. What would my husband and I say to the three of our grandchildren who also happen to have black skin? If the legislators wish to hold that only Marshall must be removed, that is their decision; but neither I, nor anyone else, has the power to plea bargain for the people. A valid Resolution has been brought by Rep. Goguen and the legislators must vote on that Resolution, whether they wish to or not. They have the right and the duty to vote as they believe, knowing that no matter how they vote, some of their constituents are going to disagree at the next election.”

     All the members of the Committee are politely circling, according to Pawlick, telling everyone, including Rep. Goguen: “It is terrible what is happening, but it’s not me. It’s that guy. If you wait just a few more days, we will straighten this out.” Meanwhile, the clock is running out.

     Better Organized

      She says that Mass. Citizens for Marriage is much better organized this year than it was in 2002, and the people are totally aroused because of the outstanding leadership of the Article 8 Alliance.

      Pawlick believes they have no choice but to continue to pressure the legislators. “They are beginning to understand that this is much different from 2002. The entire state is upset and becoming more so every day. A vote on the House floor will have to be taken with every Rep voting. They cannot avoid it.”

      Pawlick says that Finneran had Goguen’s Resolution treated as though it was an ordinary piece of legislation that was filed “late” in that it was filed after the first Wednesday of December 2003.

      Pawlick’s husband, J. Edward Pawlick, attorney for MCM, sent a letter to Finneran last week expressing their dismay to discover that after wading through the arcane rules of the House, he had found in the Journal of April 26, 2004, that Goguen’s Resolution had been subjected to Joint Rule 12.

     “This, of course, means,” he wrote, “that the Removal procedures, which have been available to the citizens and the members of the House since 1780 under our state Constitution, are now null and void. There is no way that any legislator could have filed a Resolution under Article 98 by the first Wednesday of December [December 3, 2003] inasmuch as the charges against Justices Margaret Marshall, John Greaney, Roderick Ireland and Judith Cowin about corruption hadn’t yet fully occurred [the final ruling about marriage wasn’t until February 3, 2004]. Therefore, the state Constitution is being held hostage to the ‘Rules.’”

     Pawlick states that the Constitution specifies that such a Resolution is to be decided by all the Representatives and Senators, not by fifteen members of a committee.

     She adds that many of the opponents are saying that nothing like this has ever happened before under the Removal procedure. “Well, of course it hasn’t,” rejoins Pawlick. “How many times in our history has the Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court agreed to decide in advance how a case will be handled? I would hope that such egregious behavior will never happen again!”

     Indictment Against the Four Judges

     The full text of the Indictment against Marshall and the other three judges can be found on the front page of www.macitizensformarriage.com or www.massnews.com.