Sal DiMasi Will Allow a Vote on the Removal
Four Judges from SJC
Gay Marriage Will Soon Be History in Massachusetts
By Sally Pawlick, Massachusetts
Citizens for Marriage
Speaker Sal DiMasi (D-Boston) has privately assured legislators
he will follow the law and allow a vote to be taken in the House
of Representatives to “remove” the four judges who voted last
year to force “gay marriage” upon the state.
Many are now asking how this will work. What will take
What is important is that after the four judges are removed
from the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) by the House and then
by the Senate (which could happen in one day but will undoubtedly
take more time as those on the opposite side desperately try
to stop the removal process), the remaining judges will then
be able to reverse the illegal ruling that Chief Justice Margaret
Marshall and three of the Associate Judges imposed in November
This means that “gay marriage” will immediately be gone
from Massachusetts --- undoubtedly forever --- and homosexuals
(the vast majority of whom have no desire to get “married”)
will be able to return to a normal life. The extreme feminists
at NOW will have to accept that only a tiny number of women
believe that traditional marriage is deleterious to all women
or wish it destroyed. Only a tiny few believe they are “parasites”
as the extremists say.
DiMasi Understands About Birmingham and
Speaker DiMasi realizes what happened to Tom Birmingham
and Tom Finneran and has no desire to watch the Democratic Party
continue to self-destruct while under his leadership. He saw
the ambitions of Senate President Tom Birmingham to be Governor
destroyed when the Senator broke the law and violated the state
Constitution on July 17, 2002. Birmingham is now a private lawyer
and has publicly said that his dream was lost because he broke
DiMasi also understands that former Speaker Tom Finneran
is also a private lawyer now because he, too, violated the state
Constitution in 2002. (He personally did not vote to violate
the Constitution that year and pretended to be against the violation,
while letting Birmingham take the heat).
Finneran repeated his unlawful activities again this
year when he refused to allow a vote to take place on the Resolution
by Emile Goguen (D-Fitchburg) to remove the four judges from
the SJC. As a result, Finneran was besieged with banner airplanes
flying over his house on the Cape last summer beginning on July
4 (as well as in the sky over many locations across the state,
including the State House).
The Speaker heard ads on major
radio stations, including WBZ:
Let Speaker Finneran know you’re watching. He must allow
our Reps to vote on removing Marshall.
Tell Finneran you’re looking for a vote on Removing Judge
Marshall and her three cohorts. Call Finneran … 617-722-2500.
While these ads may seem innocuous to many, they are
not innocuous when you know in your heart you are “guilty as
charged” and have enough decency to understand that.
Defeat of John Kerry Changed Everything
The defeat of John Kerry changed everything when Democratic
pundits immediately began blaming Margaret Marshall and her
opinion about “gay marriage” for the loss of the Presidential
of the New York Times/Boston Globe conglomerate, Arthur O. Sulzberger,
Jr. (Pinch) immediately began to back away from his longtime
friend, Judge Marshall, (whose husband, Anthony Lewis, has been
the premiere columnist at the Times for decades) even though
Pinch was the one who had strongly encouraged the opinion. He
put the full weight of the Globe behind Marshall’s appointment
as Chief Justice in 1999 so she could make the ruling.
The relationship between Sulzberger and Marshall has
fallen apart with each of them blaming the other and many bizarre
things taking place. (See the attached article.)
Not Unfair to Judges
The opposition will attempt to say that the “removal”
process is “unfair” to the four judges even though all the rules
of fairness will be followed. The removal of sitting judges
was included by John Adams in the Constitution he wrote for
our state in 1780. He knew that all human beings have faults
and that with the tremendous power that judges possess, it is
inevitable that some will become oppressors. Therefore, Adams
included the removal process which merely requires a simple
majority in the House and in the Senate.
Regardless of which way a Senator or Rep votes, he must
face the citizens at the next election and explain his vote.
This process understandably frightens most legislators because
they want to hide. They prefer the Amendment process which occurred
last spring when no one could agree whether any vote was for
or against traditional marriage.
Such confusion is what many legislators desire. But that
will not happen after the removal process has taken place. It
will be absolutely clear to everyone where every legislator
stands on the issue.
The judges cannot complain because each one of them will
be debated about and voted on separately under Rep. Goguen’s
The following article is reprinted from
Massachusetts News, Nov. 15, 2004
Pinch Sulzberger & Margaret Marshall
Fight; Scheme to Impose Gay Marriage Is Falling Apart
Atty. J. Edward Pawlick
I have always said that Pinch Sulzberger (Chairman of
the New York Times and Boston Globe) would abandon his friend
Margaret Marshall (Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court and wife to the radical Times columnist, Anthony
Lewis) whenever that was in his best interest (the same as Sulzberger
did to his black token, Jayson Blair, when the young man became
a burden last year).
It is evident that Marshall’s time has come.
Sulzberger and Marshall were terribly shaken (as was
the Democratic Party) by the election and its rejection of John
Kerry and its enthusiastic endorsement of constitutional amendments
in states across the country to ban “gay marriage.”
The first solid evidence of that came last Saturday in
a very strange article by Sulzberger’s columnist at the Globe,
Alex Beam. Here’s the beginning paragraph of that column in
“I am a great fan of micro-history; if you want to call
it gossip, you won't offend me in the least. I was intrigued
to learn that, after all the crocodile tears were shed for John
Kerry's wrenching electoral loss, the name on everyone's lips
was not Margaret Marshall, but . . . Judith Cowin.”
Judge Cowin is the “moderate” Republican who broke the
3-3 tie among the other judges on the Court and allowed Marshall
(and Sulzberger) to move forward on the scheme to impose “gay
marriage” on the country, even though they had only a very slim
4-3 decision. (I personally warned Marshall in open court twice
last year not to do that or she would suffer terrible wrath
from the citizens.) The other judges (all Massachusetts liberals)
were unusually passionate in their opposition to her ruling,
saying that she had no rightful power to bypass the legislature
in this unlawful manner.
But that was kept quiet by the Times/Globe empire of
Sulzberger and the rest of the compliant media. As far as the
Globe was concerned, this was a unanimous decision written by
the “courageous civil rights activist,” Margaret Marshall. According
to it, there were no dissenters to this “historic” civil rights
So why is
Sulzberger the one who is now violating that spin?
It is clear that
Sulzberger is in trouble back home with his 12 cousins who were
very unhappy when he was appointed the Chairman of the Times
by his father in 1997. They insisted at the time that a cousin,
Michael Golden, be appointed as Vice Chairman in case Pinch
ever stumbled. Golden has an office right down the hall and
is watching everything.
Pinch did stumble badly last year and felt it necessary
to blame and fire his two close friends as Editors of the Times
in order to contain the scandal of Jayson Blair. But he did
not fire himself; he remained.
see my book, “Libel by New York Times”, rapidly going across
the country to tell everyone about the evil that the Times is
creating under Pinch Sulzberger. (I sent Golden a copy a few
months ago.) The cousins do not want that threat to their very
profitable business from this weird cousin.
What Did Alex
Beam Write about Judge Cowin?
Alex Beam’s article
about Judge Cowin was totally incoherent.
His second paragraph said that some people are saying
that Marshall’s decision was the cause of the tremendous defeat
of John Kerry. But we all know that the primary instigator of
the decision was Pinch Sulzberger. If it were true that the
decision caused the terrible defeat of the Democrats, then the
true villain among all Democrats was the New York Times and
its inept, bungling Chairman.
But, what is the strange reason that Sulzberger believes
he can get out of this if he blames Judy Cowin?
His next paragraph
begins, “What about Justice Cowin?”
Well, what about Judy Cowin? (She is a 1955 graduate
of Wellesley College, two years ahead of my wife Sally, who
is President of Mass. Citizens for Marriage). Well, Cowin is
a registered Republican who was characterized by the Globe as
a “conservative” when she was appointed in 1999. Her mother
also owned the popular restaurant, Bette’s Rolls Royce, in the
1970s which was popular among politicians and others.
Are we supposed to believe that Judy Cowin voted with
Marshall just to hurt the Democrats in this year’s election?
And that is how the article ended --- with total incoherence.
It was much like the personal attack against me on April 14,
2004 which was the lead story at the top of the Business section.
In it another columnist, Steve Bailey, attempted to do a hatchet
job in which he told lawyers not to purchase my daughter’s newspaper,
Lawyers Weekly, because it would somehow help me, the “screwiest
fringe.” But it was not in Bailey’s heart and he gave my book
Came Out of Seclusion
Judge Marshall came out of seclusion yesterday in an
attempt to rehabilitate herself with an interview with A.P.
"I think you simply do the best that you can, you decide the
case and you move onto the next case," Marshall said. According
“Marshall said she welcomes scrutiny of the court and
said the ability of the public to criticize its decisions is
one of the great hallmarks of an independent judiciary in a
“’I think judges play an important constitutional role,
and the label that somebody puts onto that is one that varies
from time to time. I think as long as I'm not viewed as a lazy
judge,’ she said.
“’I - like, I think, 350 other judges - do the best they
can to uphold the constitution, and the statutes and the common
law in this commonwealth,’ she said, ‘and then we move on to
the next case.’”
Nowhere did A.P. ever note that the vote was a tie with
Marshall breaking the tie and imposing her will upon the state
and the nation. As far as A.P. was concerned it was a major
victory for “civil rights.” They quoted many “right-wingers”
who disagree but nowhere did it reveal that the most passionate
dissenters were liberal judges right on Marshall’s court.
Mary Bonauto Also
Enlisted to Help
In addition to all that, Pinch had the homosexual attorney
for the plaintiffs in the “marriage” case, Mary Bonauto, write
a column last Tuesday in which she revealed that she is also
receiving flack from “national Democrats” for causing the debacle
to John Kerry. In her spin, she told many whoppers but we don’t
have the desire to critique all that now when they are obvious
to any reader.