Chief Justice Margaret Marshall Is Not Competent!
We Were Told That by Justice Martha Sosman in 2003;
The Newest Ploy by Marshall to Stay in Power Makes It Apparent to All;
Chief Justice Admits Becoming Famous by Using Her Youth and Gender
            We were warned by Justice Martha Sosman in 2003 in a highly unusual opinion, that Margaret Marshall does not have the intelligence necessary to be the Chief Justice of the state’s Supreme Judicial Court.
            With her newest ploy last week, the Chief Justice demonstrated that she will do anything to stay in power.
            Sosman’s warning was startling because she is very supportive of the plight of homosexuals and would not do anything to hurt them. In contrast to Marshall, she is widely regarded as the most capable member of the SJC, always alert and asking penetrating questions of the lawyers who appear before it, without ever appearing to be bored.  
            It is therefore distressing to many that Justice Sosman is now on the disabled list as she seeks to recover from an illness that some attribute to the stress of seeing her beloved Court so damaged by the Chief Justice.

One of Three Dissenters in 2003
            In her initial opinion about gay marriage in 2003, Justice Sosman joined the other two dissenters, thus creating a 3-3 tie among the six Associate Justices. This forced the reluctant Marshall to break the tie. She was reluctant because everyone knew she had made a public promise (complete with photographs and a transcript) to her homosexual friend, Mary Bonauto, to vote for gay marriage if Bonauto brought such a case in Massachusetts.
            Therefore, if Marshall had one more judge on her side, she could take the “high road” and recuse herself from participating in the case. But with the Associate Justices evenly split, it would be messy to do so. Mary Bonauto had lost in the trial court. That meant that the decision of the trial judge probably must be affirmed and Bonauto would lose.
            That explains why the gay marriage case lingered and lingered while Marshall tried to decide what to do. It was worse because the Chief Justice had been admitted to Yale Law School as a “token” woman in 1973 when the schools were frantically seeking qualified women. The simple truth is that Marshall is not very bright and lacks the intelligence to write an opinion in an epoch case which made such a dramatic change to American society.
            Marshall did not become a U.S. citizen until three years after she graduated from Yale.

Sosman’s Powerful Words Never Reported by Press
            Justice Sosman exposed Chief Justice Marshall in her first opinion about gay marriage but she really let loose in the second opinion of Feb. 2004 after the state Senate had written that they were confused by Marshall’s first opinion.
       The Senate said they needed guidance as to whether their proposed “civil unions” (which would be identical to “marriage” in every way except for the name) would satisfy the Constitutional requirements as stated in Judge Marshall’s first opinion.
       The reasons that necessitated the removal of Marshall were clearly stated at that time by Justice Sosman in her opinion of February 3, 2004.
       However, Sosman’s words have never been publicized by any newspaper, including the New York Times/Boston Globe conglomerate, which is the prime force behind gay marriage across the nation.
       Justice Sosman did not specifically say that Marshall should be removed from office because that is a decision for the Legislature, but Sosman clearly demonstrated how the Chief Justice had violated her oath of office.
       (Sosman also noted that the opponents of gay marriage had been squandering their time in a fruitless effort to defend the word “marriage.” She noted that “civil unions” ARE “marriage,” regardless of what anyone calls them. She cited Romeo and Juliet to remind everyone that “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” She told the citizens that the proposed law from the Senate that the Court was being asked to consider would give same-sex couples everything that married couples get. The only difference would be that the Senate would call the new relationship a "civil union" instead of a civil "marriage." Otherwise, they would be identical.)

 State Will Be Thrown into Chaos by Illegal Power
       Justice Sosman used very harsh words to describe the illegal power that Justice Marshall had been using to impose her personal will upon the state.
She said that Marshall’s decision was not “rational” and was “nonsensical.” She said it destroyed the “fig leaf” of Marshall’s first opinion of November 18, 2003.
Sosman worried who else would apply for marriage. Although she did not name who they might be, MassNews has worried publicly about that, including two times before all the Justices of the SJC (including Justice Sosman) when Atty. J. Edward Pawlick cautioned the seven Justices about singling out just homosexuals to receive the benefits of marriage when others also seek those benefits.
       Some of the others who also want to be included are:
Those who love more than one woman and consequently desire more than one wife.
Straight people who do not wish to follow any rules in regard to their union, including the responsibility for children.
Those who desire group sex.
       When Pawlick had asked that question in 2002 of the Vermont legislative leader who had promoted civil unions, he replied that the others hadn’t been included in Vermont simply because they hadn’t asked to be.

Sosman Had to Use Marshall’s “Buzz Words”
       When Justice Sosman discussed the frailties of Justice Marshall’s decision, she had to include the “buzz” words which Judge Marshall had used to intimidate everyone else, including most lawyers, who know nothing about this arcane language, such as “suspect classification” and “strict scrutiny.”
       The following is a tiny sample of the language that Justice Sosman was forced to use. She was saying that even Justice Marshall didn’t understand these buzz words. It is clear that our readers will not understand them either. Just think about reading an entire opinion of this gobbledygook. The following is just one paragraph from the Sosman opinion.
       “[O]ther types of persons, [who also want to marry] making claims of a denial of equal protection will need to know whether they, too, can qualify as a ‘suspect’ classification under that new test and thereby obtain strict scrutiny analysis of any statute, regulation, or program that uses that classification. No analysis of why sexual orientation should be treated as a suspect classification was provided in Goodridge [the November 18 opinion], and none is provided today. Yet that is, apparently, the interpretation that is now being given to Goodridge. The footnote disclaimer [by Marshall] of any resort to ‘suspect classification’ and corresponding ‘strict scrutiny’ analysis, ante at n.3, rings hollow in light of the sweeping text of today's answer.”

Marshall Unable to Disagree with Justice Sosman
       The term “fig leaf” was used by Sosman to describe what Marshall was doing to confuse the pubic. She said that Marshall had come to the point where she just “assumes” that discrimination based on sexual orientation is prohibited by our Constitution. She no longer bothered to try to prove it, because she can’t.
       Justice Sosman challenged Justice Marshall. She asked her to “identify the new test” that she had “apparently adopted for determining” who else would qualify to be “married.” Sosman said nothing has been given as to what the new test would be when bigamists and others applied.
       Justice Marshall was incapable of answering Justice Sosman. She felt it necessary to insert the following (and highly unusual) footnote to say she was unable to understand or to answer Sosman’s erudite critique. “In any event, we fail to understand why the separate opinion [of Justice Sosman] chastises us for adopting the constitutional test (rational basis) …”
       In other words, this entire debate about the foundation of our society is dependent upon which buzz word a judge picks, “rational basis,” “strict scrutiny,” “fundamental rights,” “suspect classifications,” or a myriad of others.
       According to Justice Sosman, “[Margaret Marshall] ASSUMES that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited by our Constitution” because she is unable to give a rational reason for what she is attempting. Sosman says that Marshall’s explanations “ring hollow.” [emphasis added)
       It was as though Margaret Marshall was back in law school and unable to answer the questions of her more erudite classmate. In effect, she just replied: “BECAUSE, that’s why.”

Marshall’s Opinion Last Week Was a Desperate Attempt to Stay in Power

            Although Margaret Marshall is not intelligent enough to be Chief Justice, she is wily enough to understand the ways of the world.

            Having understood that her youth and her gender could be used to raise her from a new immigrant to the halls of top power in this country, she has served notice that she will not leave quietly.

            Despite the fact that airplanes are constantly circling the state and radio stations are joining to go “over the head” of her powerful ally, Pinch Sulzberger at The New York Times Company, she is still hoping that she can keep smiling long enough to pretend that everything is fine in Massachusetts.