By Amy Contrada
October 26, 2000
(revised for December 2000 print edition)

Our goal must be to elect "women and those who are interested in the interests of women" if we are going to get the society we want, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, Margaret Marshall, told a cheering audience at the "Women 2000" conference in Worcester last month.

The chief of the top court in Massachusetts appears to believe that men and women have totally divergent interests and are unable to work together.

She intimated that the Democrats, not the Republicans, are the friends of women when she noted that four of the seven justices now serving on the Massachusetts SJC are women and quickly added, "Three of the women were appointed by Republican governors. I think it means that women have faced enormous obstacles, but they have also been supported in different degrees from all kinds of places, expected and unexpected."

She seemed unaware that judges are not expected to be partisan, but to be neutral in all matters.

The Chief Justice is still in favor of abortion, she revealed. She noted that until the sixties, there hadn't been a lot of notice of the courts. Then, she stated, "Partly through certain decisions, like Brown v. Board of Education, like Roe v. Wade, like the school gun cases," the citizens have come to appreciate the importance of the Court. She emphasized that the President can only nominate, subject to advice and consent of the Senate. We have to elect people to the Senate who will act as we want, she said. "This is the hard work of democracy. You can't look at it and say, 'This president is going to put that judge on,'" and give us what we want. Therefore, she advised us to consider our votes for senator most carefully.

Harm to Children
Marshall also identified the great unfinished business of the women's movement as the harm "we are doing to our children, what it has meant to have women with no alternative but to work full time . . . and I mean 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m." We are leaving our children at risk, she said. She is certain that many of these women would choose not to work if they could. She cited a New York Times story on a recent report called "Women's Voices 2000." "The two issues ranked highest in that [report] which I think will resonate amongst all of us here today were lack of time to spend with family and a general decline in the nation's moral values." She said the politicians' recent attempts to blame the moral decline on the entertainment media is too simple.

This seems an odd combination of concerns: protecting the "right" of women to abort their babies, but worrying about our children? Worrying about moral decline, while the courts have played a large role in secularizing our society? Might legalized abortion have something to do with our nation's moral decline? And what are the reasons many women have been forced to work against their will? Does confiscatory taxation have anything to do with it? You'd never hear any such thoughts whispered at this conference.

Emily Rooney Promotes Abortion
Emily Rooney of WGBH's "Greater Boston" was the moderator. During the questions, she commented that "when ... Marshall's name came up as a nominee for the Chief Justice, Cardinal Bernard Law sent a letter to our Governor, Paul Cellucci, suggesting that she may not be appropriate, because of a prior position she had taken on abortion. I'm not going to ask her to address that directly."

Rooney continued: "We've heard so much about concern over what's going to happen with the Supreme Court in the United States. There are unfortunately three justices, including the two women, Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who are ill, and Justice Stevens, who is elderly, that the balance of power could change there. Could it make a difference, or will Roe v. Wade stand up no matter who is on the Supreme Court?"

Justice Marshall began by stating her deep belief in the constitutional system first set forth in Massachusetts wherein judges serve not for a limited term, but for life appointment (except for age limitations), and where salaries cannot be cut. Removal is very difficult. This ensures an independent judiciary. She credits John Adams, and possibly "his excellent wife Abigail," for this system. As for worrying about our future, "History is replete," she said, "with justices being appointed to the United States Supreme Court who turned out different" from what was expected.

She identified that as one of her main themes: that while it may seem easy to go and ask a judge to issue a ruling - as is our right - the real hard work of democracy comes through our elected representatives whether they be in labor unions, city councils, or Congress. (Marshall's philosophy of government does seem disingenuous in light of Roe v. Wade. But then the author is not a highly trained legal mind.)

To listen to Marshall, you would think the feminists' victory was near complete, especially in the legal field. Where women accounted for only a very small minority of law school graduates just 25 years ago, "today it is well nigh impossible to look at any law school and not see 50% or greater of the graduating class is women. That is a stunning, stunning change. And perhaps where women have been the most successful has been on the bench where they are not required to run for office. Massachusetts is one of a very small number of states where judges do not run for office....But we have done well where there has been an appointive process because I think there is little doubt in anybody's mind here today that when one looks primarily and significantly at competence, women face no barriers."

 

RETURN TO FRONT PAGE