Posted on 05/23/2005 2:53:00 AM PDT by ninonitti
WALTHAM -- The chief justice of the state Supreme Judicial Court said yesterday that rhetoric about judges destroying the country and the suggestion that court decisions should conform to public opinion are threatening public trust in the judicial system, a cornerstone of democracy. Justice Margaret H. Marshall, who has been widely criticized as a judicial activist since writing the court's 2003 decision allowing same-sex marriage, spoke before a crowd of 7,000 at Brandeis University's 54th commencement. A native of South Africa who fought apartheid before coming to the United States, she said she is not concerned about criticism of individual judges or decisions, but about ''attacks leveled at the very foundation of our legal system -- the principle that judges should decide each case on its merits . . . independent of outside influence."
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
The sad thing is a RINO drunk, William Weld appointed her.
Marshall is full of it. Too bad we can't get her off the bench.
What tears at the respect the Judges ought recieve from the public is when a reasonable man cannot read in their
unreasonable decisions anything to suggest they honor their oath and honor the interpretive standard of the Clear
language used--and the intent of the men who wrote and ratified the instrument. "When any court violates the clear and unambiguous language of the Constitution ,a fraud is perpetrated and no-one is bound to obey it.'Seems a sound principle of Law written in State law somewhere.
This State Supreme Court ninny has her cart in front of her horse and it's ass.
I guess something is hitting home. The judges think they are immune to criticism and are frustrated at those who criticize them. Just what do they think they do to us when they make these unconstitutional activist law decisions.
It looks like they are getting a little back for what they have done to the average American for years.
The legal system is assaulting us with their interpretations (interpretation cannot precede construction). Justice Margaret H. Marshall is insulting us with her arrogance. Justice Margaret H. Marshall you have the right to remain silent.
This 'judge' wouldn't last here in IL, we elect our judges - even our State Supreme Court ones. And more than a few power drunk, loose cannon 'gods' have been removed by "We The People".
Time for her to step down and let a better person do the job.
She mostly displayed ARROGANCE, which is the main reason for the trouble the courts are in, as far as public opinion is concerned.
Election of judges has certainly NOT improved the quality of Illinois judges. We still have sinkholes of corruption and idiocy like Madison County "Sue here, Big payouts, No Waiting" and Cook Country were the judges are RAT elected political hacks.
Only when a judge makes a horrendous decision and the Media hounds them are they removed. Most of their screwups are simply ignored. And few people know enough about any judicial matters to even vote on the judges.
James Taranto had a good take on Justice Marshall of Mass. at "Best of the Web" today (http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006727 ):
Shut Up, She Explained
The woman who gave us same-sex marriage shows what she thinks of free speech, reports the Boston Globe:
The chief justice of the state Supreme Judicial Court said yesterday that rhetoric about judges destroying the country and the suggestion that court decisions should conform to public opinion are threatening public trust in the judicial system, a cornerstone of democracy.
Justice Margaret H. Marshall, who has been widely criticized as a judicial activist since writing the court's 2003 decision allowing same-sex marriage, spoke before a crowd of 7,000 at Brandeis University's 54th commencement. . . .
"I worry when people of influence use vague, loaded terms like 'judicial activism' to skew public debate or to intimidate judges," Marshall said. "I worry when judicial independence is seen as a problem to be solved and not a value to be cherished."
Gee, what about vague terms like "extremist" or "out of the mainstream"? Has Marshall forgotten the vituperative attack liberals waged on Judge Robert Bork 18 years ago--an attack in which her husband, Anthony Lewis, played a prominent role as a New York Times columnist? Is she unaware that Senate Democrats are similarly attacking a raft of Bush judicial appointees?
Perhaps this stab at humor casts some light on the questions:
Marshall began with a joke about the blue and white balloons suspended from the Gosman Sports Center ceiling. She said she liked the colors, which included "no red states"--winning a big laugh.
So if you don't like liberal activist court rulings, you should just shut up about it, but Marshall lacks even the self-restraint to refrain from partisan japery in public. Our respect for the judiciary is diminished somewhat after reading about Marshall's performance. Isn't yours?
All that being said, can you imagine what would happen if the IL Supremes were appointed for life like in Mass and other states, we'd really be screwed. And all judges in general pretty much have to toe the line or they're not retained. IMHO the retention is our saving grace. Like when we threw out the Chief Judge who was an arrogant @$$ and a blatant drunk driver to boot.
Also, we're I'm at (DuPage) I can count on those judges being fair - then again they are all Republicans.
We're not suggesting that court decisions should conform to public opinion. We're saying that they should conform to the Constitution (and the rest of the law), which Goodridge utterly failed to do.
What is "threatening public trust in the judicial system" is the courts' arrogant usurpation of decision-making powers that rightfully belong to the people and their elected representatives.
Good, you should be worried, and I'm glad you feel intimidated by it.
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.