Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Money trail tells the tale of these judicial tyrants
The Boston Herald ^ | 2/11/2004 | Howie Carr

Posted on 2/11/2004, 12:32:48 PM by Redcoat LI

Money trail tells the tale of these judicial tyrants By Howie Carr Recent Columns by Howie Carr Wednesday, February 11, 2004

Whatever happens at the State House over the next couple of days, it's important to keep one fact in perspective.

You can't blame just the Democrats for this fiasco.

Of the four black-robed judicial tyrants who are madly determined to destroy marriage, three were appointed by Republican governors. Thanks a bunch, Bill Weld and Paul Cellucci.

The guy who is most at fault for this disaster is Bill Weld. He's the one who first appointed Margaret Marshall to the Supreme Judicial Court.

You can tell a lot about somebody by the political candidates they give money to, which is why judicial nominees are required to report all such contributions before the Governor's Council votes on them.

In 1994, Mitt Romney was running for the U.S. Senate against Ted Kennedy. Would you care to guess whom Margaret Marshall gave money to?

You guessed it. She maxed out with a grand to Teddy on Dec. 10, 1993, then followed up on Sept. 15, 1994, with another $1,000.

She had a favorite on the Boston City Council, too. It was the radical-chic ex-nun, Rosaria Salerno, aka Sister Sunshine. The future chief justice gave Sister Sunshine $250 in April 1993, then ponied up another $250 in August 1993.

Another Margaret Marshall favorite: Emily's List. She sent them $100.

Of course, in 1994, her first patron, Bill Weld, was running for re-election. Would you suppose that Margaret contributed to Bill Weld . . . or one of the Democrats who was running against him?

But of course. She gave $250 to then-Sen. Mike Barrett. He was, of course, from Cambridge, but so was Weld, dammit.

And then Paul Cellucci made her chief justice in 1999. Of course, this is a wonderful career move for Margaret Marshall. She can parlay this into a million-dollar book deal, speaking gigs at $50,000 a pop. She's the toast of the town, at least if the town is P-town, or Ogunquit, or South Beach, or Northampton.

Then there's Judith Cowin, another Cellucci appointment from 1999. Yes, she gave money to Weld - but only in 1991, after he was elected. On May 12, 1990, she gave $100 to Barney Frank.

Let me repeat that: One of the four justices who voted to end marriage as it has been known for all time is a Barney Frank campaign contributor.

During Cowin's confirmation hearings, Rep. Bill Delahunt defended her, as well he should have. She used to work for him, and she and her husband have given Delahunt at least $2,500 in campaign contributions over the years. So look on the bright side: Barney is only Judge Judy's second-favorite congressman.

By the way, just like his wife denying that she's an anti-Catholic bigot, her husband, Bill Cowin, denies that he's crooked. See, when he was up for nomination to the Appeals Court in 2001, someone remembered that he was censured as a lawyer back in 1981 following his involvement in a corruption scandal involving state contracts.

It also didn't hurt that he and Judge Judy had by then given at least $3,000 to the guy who appointed both of them - Paul Cellucci.

There's not space enough to get into the other two SJC fools. John Greaney was appointed by Dukakis - 'nuff said. And Roderick Ireland's wife gave money to Alice Wolf, lunatic lefty pol from Cambridge.

Something now occurs to me. I voted for the wrong guy for governor in 1990. I should have stayed with John Silber, the Democrat. He might have appointed sleazes, but dammit, they wouldn't have been left-wing sleazes.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: civilunion; gaymarriage; howiecarr; marriage; massachusetts

1 posted on 2/11/2004, 12:32:48 PM by Redcoat LI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Redcoat LI
Just because they were republicans doesn't mean they were conservatives. We have to look deeper to see the real colors.
2 posted on 2/11/2004, 1:33:24 PM by Shery (S. H. in APOland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcoat LI
A liberal is a LIBERAL by any name! HELLO!
3 posted on 2/11/2004, 1:43:52 PM by gr8eman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcoat LI
GREAT piece in today's Herald by Boston's greatest columnist, Howie Carr. Today should be an interesting and historic day in the Commonwealth.

Here's hoping the dirtbags in the General Court do the right thing and allow this vote to come before the people by voting to amend the Massachusetts Constitution.

4 posted on 2/11/2004, 2:10:44 PM by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: airforce19811985; American; antiliberal; Aquinasfan; Arioch7; AStack75; awestk; bd56; betty boop; ..
ping!

Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Massachusetts ping list.

5 posted on 2/12/2004, 12:32:06 AM by nutmeg (Why vote for Bush? Imagine Commander in Chief John F'in Kerry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
I dont see anyone bringing up the issue of heterosexual same sex marriages.
If anyone can marry anyone, I, a heterosexual should be able to "marry" my heterosexual divorced friend.
I mean it just makes economic good sence!
I have a decent job with employer provided benefits, but I have to pay a lot of money for before and after school child care, and quite frankly,I am not superwoman, so I find my home environment less than my ideal, to say the least.
In fact, I would prefer my child be home schooled, but since I work for a living, leaving the house at 7am and returning at 7pm, I dont see how I could arrange that!Just not fair!
But if I married my best friend, who is incredibly good at maintaining a beautifull and serene household, if she didnt have to worry about how to pay the health insurance premiums for her childrens chronic illnesses, and where the money will come from to repair the roof, and what will happen to her when she no longer receives child support from her former husband, but still has to maintain a household for them, as it is unlikely they will ever be entirely self supporting...
Hey this is a great deal!
We could trade off on nights out, and possibly even find men we would each like to "date".
Yeah, lets all do that, and call it a legal, socially approved and condoned viable marriage!
After all, we must not legally discriminate as a society on individual private sexual lifestyle choices!
Can anyone think of any negative consequences to society?
/sarcasm//



6 posted on 2/12/2004, 1:55:28 AM by sarasmom (No war for oil=Give France/Russia/China etc oil ,and no war-or so Saddam thought.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Redcoat LI
There is a lesson about RINOs here.
7 posted on 2/12/2004, 2:01:39 AM by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom
There you go! That sounds like an outstanding idea and a great argument to show how ridiculous this notion truly is.

The more I think about it, however, the more I hope that gays have the "right" to marry on 17 May. If there's going to be a culture war, let's let the first shot, metaphorically speaking, be fired here. Why not in Massachusetts? Bring it on.

8 posted on 2/12/2004, 2:07:41 PM by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson