Defeat of John Kerry Changed Everything

            The defeat of John Kerry changed everything. Democratic pundits instantly began blaming Margaret Marshall and her opinion about “gay marriage” for the loss of the Presidential election, and correctly so.
             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 ruling. He put the Globe behind Marshall’s appointment as Chief Justice in 1999 so she could make the ruling.            

We Have Always Known that Sulzberger Would Abandon Margaret Marshall
            We have always known that Pinch Sulzberger would abandon Margaret Marshall if things got tough, the same way he abandoned Jayson Blair and his top two editors, both close friends of his, in 2003. It is now evident that Marshall is joining Jayson Blair. Her time has come. Both Sulzberger and Marshall were terribly shaken (as was the entire Democratic Party) by the election with its rejection of John Kerry and its endorsement of amendments across the country to ban “gay marriage.” Evidence of Sulzberger’s panic came on Saturday, Nov. 13, 2004, in a strange article by his 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 Is Responsible for Gay Marriage!?!
            Judge Cowin is the “moderate” Republican who made it a 3-3 tie among the Associates on the SJC and allowed Chief Justice Marshall (and Sulzberger) to move forward on the scheme to impose “gay marriage” on the country. After Marshall had voted, this gave her a very slim 4-3 decision. (Atty. Pawlick warned Marshall in open court twice in 2002-2003 not to do that or she would suffer wrath from the citizens.) The three judges against her (all Massachusetts liberals) were unusually passionate in their opposition, saying that she had no rightful power to do this.
But that was kept quiet by the Times/Globe empire of Sulzberger and the rest of the compliant media, including the Associated Press in which the Sulzbergers are very active at the national level. As far as they’re  concerned, this was a unanimous decision written by the “courageous civil rights activist,” Judge Margaret Marshall.

Sulzberger Is in Trouble
            It is clear that Sulzberger is in trouble with his 12 cousins who were unhappy when he was appointed Chairman of the Times by his father in 1997.
            They insisted that a cousin,Michael Golden, be made Vice Chairman in case Pinch ever stumbled Golden is sitting right down the hall and watching everything.
            Pinch did stumble badly in 2003 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 is able to see that the new book by Atty. Pawlick, “Libel by New York Times”, is rapidly going across the country to tell everyone about the evil that the Times is creating under Pinch Sulzberger. (We 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 the Globe Columnist Write about Judge Cowin?
            The article by columnist Alex Beam about Judge Cowin was totally incoherent. His second paragraph said that some people are saying that Marshall’s decision was the reason for the tremendous defeat of John Kerry. But we all know that the primary instigator of the decision was Pinch Sulzberger. If it is true that Marshall’s decision caused the terrible defeat of the Democrats, then the true villain among all Democrats is the New York Times and its inept, bungling Chairman. By what strange reason does Sulzberger believe he can get out of this if he blames Judy Cowin?
            The next paragraph of his compliant columnist begins: “What about Justice Cowin?”
            Well, what about Judy Cowin?!? (She is a 1955 graduate of Wellesley College, two years ahead of Sally Pawlick.) Well ... Cowin is a registered Republican who was characterized by the Globe as a “conservative” when she was appointed in 1999. Should we believe that Judy Cowin voted as she did just to hurt the Democrats?
            And that is how the article ended --- with total incoherence. It was much like the personal attack against Atty. Pawlick on April 14, 2004, which was the lead story at the top of the Globe’s Business section. In it, another columnist, Steve Bailey, attempted to do a hatchet job in which he told lawyers not to subscribe to Atty. Pawlick’s daughter’s newspaper, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly (the bible of the industry), because it would somehow help Atty. Pawlick, the “screwiest fringe.” But the whole debacle merely gave the new book some excellent publicity.

Judge Marshall Came Out of Seclusion to Protect Herself from Pinch
            Judge Marshall came out of seclusion on the day that the Beam column ran. She told A.P. reporter Jennifer Peters on that day (see A.P. story of Monday, Nov. 15) in an attempt to rehabilitate herself. "I think you simply do the best that you can, you decide the case and you move onto the next case." [sic]
            According to Peters: “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,’ [sic] 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 Peters ever note that the vote was a tie among the other six judges on the court, with Marshall breaking the tie and imposing her will upon the state and nation. As far as A.P. was concerned, it was a major victory for “civil rights.” Peters quoted many “right-wingers” who disagreed with A.P.’s interpretation of the event but nowhere did she reveal that the most passionate of those dissenters were three liberal judges right on Marshall’s court. Nor did she note that the owners of the Times sit on all the national boards of A.P. and control it at every level.
            The lead lawyer in the homosexual “marriage” case, Mary Bonauto from GLAD, also attempted to assist Judge Marshall, her friend. Pinch had her write a column in the Globe (Tuesday, Nov. 9) in which she revealed 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 space or the desire to critique all that again when it’s obvious to anyone.