All Legislators Being Advised Today that Sal DiMasi Will Be Allowing Vote on Removal of Four Judges from SJC
    The following information is being distributed throughout the State House today by Sally Pawlick, President of Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage.
 
*    *    *    *    *
 

Sal DiMasi Will Allow a Vote on the Removal of

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 place?
            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 2003.
            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 Finneran
            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 the law.
            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.   It’s required.  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 election.
             The Chairman 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 Resolution. 

 

The following article is reprinted from Massachusetts News, Nov. 15, 2004

Pinch Sulzberger & Margaret Marshall Fight; Scheme to Impose Gay Marriage Is Falling Apart

 

By 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 its entirety:

            “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.”

            Judith Cowin?!? 

 

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 victory anywhere.

             So why is Sulzberger the one who is now violating that spin?

 

Sulzberger Is in Trouble

            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.

             Golden can 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 excellent publicity.

 

Judge Marshall 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 to A.P.:

            “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 healthy democracy.
            “’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.



 




Copyright 2008 ©All Rights Reserved
MassNews.com®
508-410-2087