Skip to comments.Massachusetts Judge Allegedly Colluded With Homosexuals
Posted on 06/02/2004 2:35:21 AM PDT by kattracks
(CNSNews.com) - A Massachusetts lawmaker issued what he called a five-count "indictment" against the state's highest judge, Margaret Marshall, on Tuesday, accusing her of conspiring with homosexual activists before ruling in favor of same-sex marriage last November.
Democrat state Rep. Emile J. Goguen wants Marshall ousted as chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The information he released Tuesday cites alleged violations of the state's Code of Judicial Conduct and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. However, Goguen's accusations do not represent formal charges against Marshall.
Goguen accused Marshall of "aiding and abetting" Mary L. Bonauto, the attorney who argued the same-sex marriage case for the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders. Marshall also did nothing when a lower court judge spoke favorably about same-sex marriage, Goguen charged.
The criticism comes a little more than a month after CNSNews.com reported about a speech Marshall gave to the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association in 1999. She was an associate justice at the time.
During that speech, Marshall praised her native South Africa's embrace of sexual orientation protections and the "growing body of gay-friendly international jurisprudence," according to a recap of the event from the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association.
Goguen said Marshall should have disqualified herself from the same-sex marriage case as a result of her 1999 appearance before the bar association. Oral arguments in the case, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health , were held March 4, 2003. It was decided Nov. 18, 2003.
At the time of Marshall's speech, the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct stated, "A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The code was slightly modified last year to change "should" to "shall."
"After Justice Marshall gave the keynote address at the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association on May 7, 1999, not only 'might' her impartiality be questioned in the Goodridge case, it would have to be questioned by any impartial person," Goguen wrote. "It was not a secret that Judge Marshall desired that such a case be filed in the Massachusetts courts."
The Supreme Judicial Court's public information officer, Joan Kenney, declined to comment on Marshall's behalf.
"The justices have spoken through their written opinions in the Goodridge case," Kenney wrote in an e-mail to CNSNews.com . "As in every case before the court, the justices do not comment beyond their written opinions, but they respect the right of individuals to express their own views in such matters."
Even before Tuesday's announcement, Goguen caused a stir by crafting a "bill of address" that asks Republican Gov. Mitt Romney to remove Marshall and three other Supreme Judicial Court judges from office. It awaits action from the House Rules Committee.
A similar measure targeting only Marshall was introduced last week by Democrat state Rep. Philip Travis. Both bills are considered mostly symbolic moves, but their sponsors hope to spur some action on the part of the Legislature.
To help bolster his case against Marshall, Goguen has turned to Edward and Sally Pawlick of Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage, a group that has fought to limit marriage to one man and one woman. The Article 8 Alliance, run by Brian Camenker, has also shed light on Marshall's association with homosexual activists.
In addition to Marshall's 1999 speech before the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association, Goguen said it was improper for Marshall to attend the annual gala of the Women's Bar Association, at which Bonauto was honored in 2000.
"Judges should not attend political events, particularly when the honoree was a partisan such as Mary Bonauto, who appeared regularly in Massachusetts courts," Goguen wrote.
Goguen also scolded Marshall for not censuring or disciplining Suzanne V. DelVecchio, chief justice of the Massachusetts Superior Court. The Goodridge case originated in DelVecchio's court, and according to Goguen, she traveled in the same circles as homosexual activists like Bonauto.
Other alleged violations cited by Goguen range from Marshall's alleged public comments about the case to her behavior during oral arguments.
At least one of Goguen's charges appears unsubstantiated. He cites a Christian Science Monitor story from Nov. 21, 2003, as evidence Marshall spoke to the press, a practice shunned upon by the state Code of Judicial Conduct.
But the author of the story, Sara B. Miller, a Monitor staff writer, said she never spoke to Marshall. Instead, Miller interviewed people familiar with the chief justice.
Marshall has defended her silence about the Goodridge case. Following a commencement speech at Oberlin College last weekend, she told The Morning Journal of Lorain, Ohio, "Judges don't talk about their decisions. Not directly or indirectly."
See Earlier Story:
Author of Homosexual Marriage Ruling is Under Fire, Won't Budge (April 28, 2004)
E-mail a news tip to Robert B. Bluey.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Margaret Marshall is in her late fifties and is married to Anthony Lewis, former columnist for the New York Times, who is twenty-years her senior. She apparently has no children and some say that as a result, she has no appreciation for the feelings of women who do. They say she has never had any experience with a family and has focused only on her career.
The Globe lobbied heavily for Marshall in its Editorial, opinion and news pages. The appointment was strongly opposed by many. In a "news story" on Oct. 12, 1999, titled "Rulings show nominee a moderate jurist with progressive views," the first sentence was: "Sex offenders have rights. Modern families no longer mean just mom, dad, and the kids."
The paper cited some of those "moderate" rulings:
o The Globe wrote: "When the SJC last August ruled that anyone convicted of a sex crime is entitled to a hearing before being listed on the state's sex-offender registry, Marshall wrote: 'The burden will be on the sex offender board to establish at the hearing that the offender poses a risk to vulnerable populations.'"
o Concerning an opinion where Marshall had struck down a Boston ordinance creating domestic partners because it was clearly forbidden by state law, the Globe wrote:
"Marshall urged state lawmakers to craft legislation that acknowledges the place of nontraditional families in modern life. 'We recognize that . . . [a] "family" may no longer be constituted simply of a wage-earning father, his dependent wife, and the couple's children,' Marshall wrote. Nonetheless, 'Adjustments in the legislation to reflect these new social and economic realities must come from the Legislature.'" (The foregoing text appeared in the Globe exactly as printed here.)
The news article also claimed: "An examination of her rulings and the comments of colleagues indicate a moderate jurist who tempers some of her progressive views with judicial restraint and an awareness of the powers and limits of the courts. In the tradition-bound court that convenes in a high-rise on Pemberton Square, Marshall, the controversial chief justice nominee, has also added energy and spice to a frequently bland bench."
Marshall graduated from college in her South African homeland in 1966 and came here two years later for a master's degree from Harvard. After Yale Law School, she became a partner in the prestigious firm of Choate, Hall and Stewart, leaving there to become General Counsel for Harvard University. She was appointed to the SJC in 1996 and then elevated by Gov. Cellucci to Chief in 1999.
Superior Court Chief Justice
Hon. Suzanne DelVecchio
To Be Lead Speaker at May 5 (2000) Annual Dinner
The keynote address for MLGBA's (Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association) Annual Dinner will be delivered by the Honorable Suzanne DelVecchio, the first woman to be appointed Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Superior Court. A fifteen-year veteran of the bench, DelVecchio was first admitted to practice in 1967, after graduating from Boston College Law School. She has long been known for her lively and vibrant personality. A 1999 Lawyers Weekly profile described her in these terms: "Her judicial demeanor is personable, even buoyant, with a dash of humor for good measure." Noted also for her open-mindedness, Judge DelVecchio is without question a real "people person" and, as one lawyer has observed, she "understands that litigation involves people with everyday problems. It's not just about bean counting." As a former vice chair of the Future of the Courts Commission, and given her current leadership position, Judge DelVecchio is sure to have many interesting observations about the challenges presently confronting the Bay State's legal system.
Yup. Let's spice things up a bit. Let's sugar-coat this whole pile of dung to mask the odor.
Imagine the outrage if she had gone duck-hunting with Bonauto.
Please dear God, let there be at least one case this year where a judicial tyrant gets impeached, convicted, and removed for their blatant disregard for justice.
No, impossible. (sarcasm) Not conspiracy. Ok, if it is conspiracy, then it surely must be some VRWC. Yeah, that's it. I'm waiting for Kerry's mock outrage and simultaneous support of the Mass lawmaker.
Sadly, Gov. Cellucci was a Republican governor. Makes you wanna throw your hands up sometimes.
Screw the UN.
Now there's a Democrat I could vote for.
At least they didn't do anything so outrageous as duck hunting together.
First woman approved as head of Massachusetts
BOSTON (AP) Justice Margaret Marshall was elevated to chief
justice of Massachusetts' highest court Wednesday, becoming the first
woman to head the nation's oldest appellate court.
Ms. Marshall, a former chief counsel at Harvard University, overcame
charges of anti-Catholic bias to win a 6-3 confirmation vote by the
Governor's Council, which votes on nominations by the governor.
"1 follow in the footsteps of giants," Ms. Marshall said. "1 do so with
humility, and with a deep commitment to the rule of law."
Ms. Marshall, 55, a native of South Africa, was appointed an associate
justice of the Supreme Judicial Court in 1996. She was at Harvard at the
time and had previously been in private practice.
Her nomination to head the 307-year-old court was marred when
Cardinal Bernard Law raised concerns that she harbored anti-Catholic
Law, who heads the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, wrote last
month to Gov. Paul Cellucci and said Ms. Marshall was "open to serious
charges of anti-Catholicism."
He cited an incident in which Ms. Marshall, while at Harvard, chastised a
professor who had used university stationery for a personal note with an
Catholic groups also feared she could not be impartial on abortion cases
because she once served on an abortion clinic's board of trustees. Ms.
Marshall denied her personal views would affect her role as jurist.
Law later retracted his complaint after speaking with Ms. Marshall, who
"She gave me her assurance that she was not anti-Catholic," he said, "and
I have absolutely no reason to not accept her word on that."
10/13/99 8:44 PM
It's Time to Hold Federal Judges Accountable
Senator Orrin Hatch has taken exception to the New York Times' criticism of his record as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he wrote a letter to the editor to object. (2-19-97) The Times had complained that Republican Senators have "politicized" the judicial confirmation process by not confirming enough of Clinton's judicial nominees.
Not so, says Hatch, and he has the numbers to prove it. He proudly asserts that the Senate has confirmed 202 of Clinton's judges. That's more than President Bush's (194), more than President Reagan's (164), and more than President Nixon's (191) during each of their first terms. Hatch added, "None of these judges would have been confirmed without Republican cooperation."
It is not only shocking that Republican Senators have cooperated in confirming Clinton's 202 federal judges, but it is just as shocking that Orrin Hatch is bragging about it. In allowing themselves to be coopted by Bill Clinton, Republican Senators have failed to accept their constitutional "advice and consent" responsibilities.
The federal judges appointed by Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are the biggest threat to constitutional self government today. These activist judges have been writing liberal opinions into the law, usurping legislative functions, and depriving Americans of our rights of self-government.
Last November 15, Senator Hatch made a speech to the Federalist Society in which he said, "Those nominees who are or will be judicial activists should not be nominated by the President or confirmed by the Senate, and I personally will do my best to see to it that they are not." Sounds good, doesn't it?
But Senator Hatch and Republican leader Bob Dole enthusiastically confirmed Clinton's most activist Supreme Court nominee, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Her Supreme Court opinion forcing Virginia Military Institute to admit women is typical feminist judicial extremism and was wholly predictable at the time of her appointment. Where were Orrin Hatch and Republican Senators then? They didn't even ask Ginsburg any questions about her own published writings in support of radical feminist goals to fundamentally change our Constitution. (See the Phyllis Schlafly Report, July 1993)
Use the Impeachment Power!
Instead of cooperating in confirming Clinton's judges, Republicans should be talking about impeaching the Clinton and Carter judges who have been usurping legislative and executive functions. Article III states that "The Judges, both of the Supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior," and it is not "good behavior" to hand down rulings based on personal social views rather than the Constitution's words.
David Barton of the Texas-based organization called WallBuilders has just published a handbook called Impeachment, in which he lays out the constitutional foundations for using impeachment to curb our present overactive judiciary. (WallBuilders, P.O. Box 397, Aledo, TX 76008, 817-441-6044)
The Constitution contains six clauses about impeachment. The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment (the presentation of formal charges). The Senate has the sole power to try impeachments, and conviction requires a two-thirds vote. Punishment can be removal from office or removal plus a bar against future office-holding.
Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, and Congress cannot impose civil or criminal penalties. Contrary to current popular misconceptions, the offense for which a judge may be impeached does not have to be a crime or have any statutory or criminal basis. Barton quotes numerous Founders to prove that they viewed impeachment as a remedy for a broad range of non-statutory offenses such as (in George Mason's words) "attempts to subvert the Constitution," or (in Alexander Hamilton's words) "violation of some public trust."
Even that great advocate of judicial power, Chief Justice John Marshall, wrote during impeachment proceedings against Justice Samuel Chase for his arbitrary use of judicial power that "a Judge giving a legal opinion contrary to the opinion of the legislature is liable to impeachment." Carter and Clinton judges are constantly making rulings contrary to what the legislature intended.
The impeachment cases brought during our country's first half-century involved non-statutory offenses, such as judicial high-handedness. It's easy to think of some current judges who could be targets for impeachment on that charge.
When President Gerald Ford was a Congressman, he proposed the impeachment of one of the most liberal of all Supreme Court Justices, William O. Douglas. Ford, who was a moderate in every sense of the word, explained Congress's tremendous and far-reaching power of impeachment: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body [the Senate] considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office."
When we open the topic of impeachment, we hear a lot of impassioned talk about preserving the "independence" of the judiciary. That's really a cover to shield federal judges from accountability. The Founders did not intend life tenure for federal judges to saddle us with a judicial oligarchy.
In our intricate constitutional system of interlacing checks and balances, the legislative and executive branches are held accountable by frequent elections. Judges should be held accountable by the Senate's "advice and consent" power to withhold confirmation, and by the House's power to impeach judges for lack of "good behavior."
Stop Federalizing Local Crimes
Americans were shocked when Congressional investigations in 1995 unfolded the truth about the fatal tragedies at Ruby Ridge, Idaho and Waco, Texas. In the former, an innocent woman and child were killed in cold blood by an FBI sharpshooter, and in the latter, 80 American men, women and children were incinerated by the Federal Government in a full-scale military attack. Both events involved outrageous abuses of power by federal law enforcement agencies, followed by lies, coverups, and destruction of evidence.
The Senators on the Terrorism, Technology and Government Information Subcommittee could not conceal their amazement at how busybody federal agents had manufactured the Ruby Ridge case out of virtually nothing into a monstrosity that involved millions of dollars, an 18-month siege of a little cabin on a remote Idaho mountain, a federal assault force of 400 agents armed with sub-machine guns, and the killing of innocent people.
These tragedies have changed the way Americans view federal law enforcement agencies and jeopardized public confidence in government itself. It's no wonder that people distrust government today and that ordinary Americans have concluded that the government is our enemy, not our friend.
What concerns us here is not merely the actions of certain federal employees, but the involvement of the Federal Government in the first place.
Ruby Ridge and Waco were, constitutionally speaking, none of the Federal Government's business. Neither incident involved interstate activity or posed a threat to the Federal Government.
The underlying problem is that so many criminal laws and laws regulating firearms have been federalized. Until very recent years, everything involved at Ruby Ridge and Waco would have been handled under state and local laws (if, indeed, there were anything to handle at all, since the Ruby Ridge sequence of events started only when a BATF agent entrapped Randy Weaver into committing a minor firearms violation).
Former Attorney General Edwin Meese believes that these outrages require remedies that are much more fundamental than the mere suspension and forced retirement of several agents.
Federalizing crime contradicts constitutional principles, according to Edwin Meese. The U.S. Constitution gave Congress jurisdiction over only three crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations. The Constitution left responsibility for public safety solely in the domain of the states.
Congress, however, has created more than 3,000 federal crimes, many of them redundant with state laws. Hardly any crime, no matter how local, is now beyond the jurisdiction of federal criminal authorities.
Meese accurately says that federalizing crime increases "the potential for an oppressive and burdensome federal police state."
Ruby Ridge and Waco proved that proposition when the federal agents who testified before the Senate investigating committee expressed no apology for their actions. They repeatedly said that they would take the same course of action if they had it to do all over again. Attorney General Janet Reno stoutly maintained that the Justice Department made no mistakes during the Waco debacle.
One of the worst effects of federalizing crime is the added jurisdiction and power this gives to the federal courts. Activist federal judges have greatly expanded the rights of criminal defendants, have further burdened law-enforcement agencies, and have virtually taken over the operation of 80 percent of all state prison systems. Arrogant federal judges have overturned or altered jury findings and verdicts, contrary to the specific powers given to juries, which are enumerated in the Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Another part of the federalizing of crime is the criminalization of environmental regulations. Many of these federal environmental crimes are local in nature, and they are often so vague that some property owners violate the law without realizing it.
Crime often tops the list when voters are asked what they are concerned about, and Republicans like to pose as law-and-order spokesmen. That's why many politicians, seeking to portray themselves as tough on crime, have passed so many laws creating new federal crimes and stiffer penalties. They should know that these laws are not in harmony with our Constitution and that crime is most effectively fought at the local level, anyway.
Republicans also do a lot of talking about their devotion to the Tenth Amendment. If they are sincere, Congress should wipe off the books all the federal crimes that contravene the principles of the Tenth Amendment or that are redundant with state crimes. It's time for Members of Congress to admit that law-and-order is a state and local function and address themselves to the real problems that are properly Congress's responsibility.
The Legal Services Corporation Should Be Abolished
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is the acid test to demonstrate whether or not the Republican Congress really intends to reform and reduce Big Government and restrain the Imperial Judiciary. If the Republicans merely play around with smoke and mirrors, pretending to correct abuses, but leave the money faucet turned on, they will have betrayed their mandate from the 1994 and 1996 elections and left their enemies with a gun pointed at their head.
When most people think of legal aid services, they think of helping victims who can't afford a lawyer, especially women and children. LSC is actually a giant national network of tax-funded lawyers who file lawsuits before liberal judges in order to implement a radical social and political agenda. LSC lawyers provide activist federal judges with legal jargon to rationalize usurping legislative and executive functions.
LSC lawyers work for such causes as preventing the eviction of drug dealers from public housing, shielding violent offenders' criminal records from the public, getting perks for prison inmates, maintaining taxpayer benefits for illegal aliens, and releasing mental patients (who often then join the ranks of the homeless).
When LSC lawyers talk about conducting "research" and facilitating "training," they are using euphemisms for political organizing and lobbying for pro-gay-rights, pro-abortion, pro-welfare-entitlement, pro-criminal, pro-drug, and pro-illegal-alien causes.
Interference in Elections. The most recent LSC outrage is the attempt to overturn an election that LSC lawyers didn't like. An LSC grantee, Texas Rural Legal Aid (TRLA), which gets 80 percent of its funding from the U.S. taxpayers, is trying to overturn the narrow elections of a Republican County Commissioner and a Republican Sheriff by suing to get a federal court to void the absentee ballots of 800 U.S. active duty military personnel and their families. TRLA's outlandish argument is that the military absentees diluted the votes of Hispanic residents.
U.S. District Judge George J. Korbel authorized discovery, and so TRLA sent a 24-page, 54-question deposition to all Val Verde County, Texas voters who cast absentee ballots in the November 1996 election. This extremely nosy questionnaire demands very personal information in extraordinary detail. The questionnaire demands lengthy written answers to questions about each voter's credit cards, bank accounts, stock brokerage accounts, insurance, the names of every organization to which the voter belongs, all schools and colleges attended by the voter's children and whether tuition was paid or not, and where the voter's spouse sleeps at night.
On January 8, LSC's Washington office sent a letter to TRLA stating that this lawsuit "constitutes a substantial violation of the grant agreement." But that letter didn't have any impact. TRLA further defied Congress by asking for attorney's fees, despite a clear prohibition on that practice.
LSC Has Spent $5 Billion since 1974. If the leftwing lawyers had merely torched the money, that wouldn't have been nearly as destructive as spending the money the way they did. LSC lawyers spent the money to litigate and lobby to increase entitlements (for welfare, aliens, criminals, etc.) that are the chief cause of federal deficits. Howard Phillips, who has been monitoring LSC since 1970 when President Nixon appointed him to a position that included that responsibility, estimates that LSC activism has added $2 trillion to the national debt.
LSC's litigation deserves a large share of the blame for our out-of-control, failed welfare system. LSC initiated the case, King v. Smith, in which the Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that the behavior of welfare mothers, including cohabiting with wage-earning males, could not be considered when determining eligibility for benefits. In Shapiro v. Thompson in 1969, LSC got the Supreme Court to ban the one-year residency requirement for welfare eligibility. In 1970, in Goldberg v. Kelly, LSC persuaded the Supreme Court to require a hearing process before benefits can be cut off for any reason. As a result, hardly anyone is ever cut off.
The theory behind these cases, invented by LSC tax-funded lawyers, is that welfare recipients have a property right in their benefits, just like the rest of us have a property right in our houses or automobiles. This off-the-wall rationale has become the cornerstone of the welfare rights movement, which has changed our laws and picked the pockets of taxpayers.
Another favorite LSC constituency is incarcerated convicted felons. LSC's class action suit against the North Carolina prison system resulted in a requirement that each of 13 prisons provide softball and basketball equipment for two teams, a piano, a set of drums, three guitars, and five frisbees. Another LSC victory was to establish Chicago prisoners' rights to cable television and expensive weight rooms.
Other exotic LSC lawsuits included representing transsexuals in an effort to overturn Georgia's prohibition on Medicaid reimbursement for sex change operations, forcing public housing officials to rent apartments to unemancipated minors, and trying to define opium and alcohol addiction as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
How LSC Nullifies "Reforms." Congress had planned to terminate LSC in 1995, but because of bleeding-heart whining about the "poor," Congress relented and extended LSC's life with some reasonable restrictions to try to de-politicize it. Congress banned the filing of class-action lawsuits and prohibited LSC grantees from pursuing politically controversial cases, even with non-LSC funds. The handful of Republican "moderates" plus the Democrats who engineered this life-support system for LSC assured us that LSC would clean up its act and devote itself to its real mission of helping the poor.
LSC responded by committing a raft of new offenses, such as the interference in the Texas election (described above) and filing lawsuits to get the federal courts to overturn the new Congressional regulations.
For the last 20 years, LSC grantees have evaded the laws against political advocacy by claiming that they were pursuing political cases with "non-LSC" money. This loophole is big enough to drive thousands of lawsuits through because money is fungible and nobody can identify what money is being spent for which suit. Most LSC money comes from the federal taxpayers, who pay for LSC attorneys' salaries and overhead. Since Congress cannot force grantees to open their case files, there is no way to prove allocation of the funds.
Congress certainly should have the right to appropriate taxpayers' money only to those who agree not to engage in class-action suits or political advocacy, and that was one of the reforms passed in the previous Congress.
LSC lawyers have counterattacked through the courts. An LSC grantee in New York, Legal Services for the Elderly, persuaded a New York state judge to rule on December 26, 1996 that it is unconstitutional for Congress to prohibit LSC grantees from engaging in class-action lawsuits or pursuing political litigation with non-LSC funds. Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Beverly Cohen ruled that Congress has no right to tell LSC grantees what kind of cases they can pursue with non-LSC money. Judge Cohen said that this restriction is just a "thinly disguised attack on basic freedoms," i.e., the "basic freedom" of tax-funded LSC lawyers to engage in class-action or political litigation.
This decision inspired other LSC groups to challenge the new Congressional restrictions. Five LSC-funded groups filed suit in federal district court in Hawaii, and on February 19, 1997, Federal Judge Alan Kay struck down the new Congressional restrictions on the way LSC lawyers spend nonfederal funds. A federal judge in Rhode Island and a Ohio state judge have also granted temporary relief to legal aid groups and allowed them to continue work on their class action suits.
LSC Can't Be Reformed. LSC lawyers have no intention of abiding by any restrictions, and when they bring their cases before Carter-appointed or Clinton-appointed judges, they have a good chance of outmaneuvering any restrictions Congress tries to impose. LSC lawyers have constructed for themselves such a Byzantine, self-perpetuating infrastructure and grant-making mechanism that they are accountable to no one: not to Congress, or to the Administration, or to the people they serve, or to the taxpayers who foot the bills. Hillary Rodham Clinton used to be LSC's chairman of the board, and LSC has continued to be peopled with leftwing attorneys who share her class-warfare ideology and socialist goals.
Radical leftwing activism is part and parcel of the Legal Services Corporation. It is a fraud on the public to pretend it can be reformed. LSC functions as a pot of gold for leftwing lawyers to litigate and lobby for radical causes. This scandal-ridden agency must be completely abolished. The 1996 Republican Party Platform called for the elimination of the Legal Services Corporation. It's time to fulfill that pledge before LSC engages in any more mischief.
So she lied!
So, who's going to file the charges?
One of sKerry's first US Supreme Court nominees?
Are you kidding? They would never allowed a pro-life judge to even hear an abortion case. They would DEMAND that judge be removed from the case. But when it comes to a judge show obvious prejudice in their favor, they suddenly have no problem.
Democrats plan to rule by a new form of government. They call it Hypocracy.
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.