|
|---|
|
Changes
in Legislature Could Bring Removal of Margaret Marshall Very Quickly; Requiring
Removal of SJC Judges to Ever Go to Any Committee Is Unconstitutional Lawmakers are ready to propose changes to the Rules in the House and Senate that would restructure committees dealing with legislation like Rep. Goguen’s Bill of Address, which would remove the four SJC judges who imposed gay “marriage” on the state in 2003. However, the President of Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage, Sally Pawlick, points out that even though this looks like the Democrats are finally obeying the state Constitution, this would merely be more tricks by them. “This is mere ‘window dressing,’” said Pawlick. “But Speaker Sal DiMasi has not spoken yet. We are hopeful that he will follow through on his promise to the Representatives and allow the matter to come to an immediate vote in the legislature. He understands that a quick vote is necessary to preserve the Democratic Party in the state.” The 2003-2004 legislative session saw Goguen’s Bill of Address bottled up in a committee, unable to move forward, despite the public outcry demanding that Speaker Tom Finneran allow it to proceed. (See Related Story) Although lawyers for Finneran had agreed with Rep. Goguen that the matter should never go to a committee, he changed his mind and did allow it to be sent to a committee where it was killed in a “smoke-filled” room with no report ever made about how anyone voted. The new House Speaker, Rep. DiMasi, is currently reviewing recommendations that have been submitted by an ad hoc committee that DiMasi named to make necessary changes so that no bills are left in a state of indefinite limbo. However, the committee has not specifically addressed Goguen’s Resolution. Rep. Jay Kaufman (D-Lexington), an outspoken advocate of gay “marriage” who has been serving on the ad-hoc committee, told the State House News Service yesterday that formal recommendations will be made from the committee by the end of this week or early next week, with a debate on the rules tentatively planned for next Tuesday. Under his proposal, this would doom any vote on the matter. It allows a few people to thwart the quick action required under the explicit words of the state Constitution written in 1780 by the second President of the United States, John Adams. Although people like Kaufman would point out that it is the “custom” to send any Resolution under this provision of the state Constitution to a committee, says Pawlick, these words in the Constitution have always been opposed by the “establishment,” especially lawyers, ever since they were written. “This proposal to allow the people to summarily and quickly remove the lawyers who sit as judges has never been popular among lawyers even though it is totally fair and not arbitrary,” said Pawlick. “Every legislator who votes to remove a judge in his sole discretion will be evaluated at the next election. If he was arbitrary in either direction, the voters will make the final decision. The establishment has never liked that, and they still don’t.” |
|---|
| Copyright 2004 ©All Rights Reserved MassNews.com® P.O. Box 5882 Holliston, MA 01746 781-237-2772 |
|---|
