Massachusetts Chief Justice opposes Free Speech
In Massachusetts (where else?) many a moonbat-liberal-munching-bean opposes free speech for non-liberals. Quite a few of them teach at Harvard and Brandeis. But none are as openly in favor of suppressing the rights of conservatives to dissent from liberal dogma as is the chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court herself.
Justice Margaret H. Marshall who has been widely criticized as a judicial activist since writing the court's 2003 decision allowing same-sex marriage. She expressed her opposition to free speech for non-liberals when she spoke before a crowd of 7,000 at Brandeis University's 54th commencement this week. Among those who evidently need to be denied freedom of dissent regarding judicial activism (which is a euphemism for judicial tyranny), in her learned opinion, are Governor Mitt Romney, who accused her and her comrades on the state Supreme Judicial Court of ''judicial overreaching" in the Wall Street Journal last year, and President George W. Bush, who has lashed out at ''activist judges" -- those who use their decisions to push a social agenda. Marshall dismisses such criticism as ''gratuitous attacks on judges undermine that trust." Marshall insisted that rhetoric about judges destroying the country and the suggestion that court decisions should conform to public opinion are threatening the judicial system.
Among other comments, she said:
''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."
Marshall's exploitation of her invitation to Brandeis to bash critics of loose-cannon judges was probably part of her attempts to defend herself from groups like Article 8 Alliance, a Waltham group founded to remove Marshall and the other three justices who ruled for same-sex marriage from the bench. Its spokesman said, "''Activist judges' is a specific term that refers to judges who rule outside the rule of law. It has to do with whether they use objective, legal, constitutional means to base their decisions."
Marshall is native of South Africa who fought apartheid before coming to the United States. Now she no doubt endorses American apartheid, also known as affirmative action.
2 Comments:
Chief Justice Marshall's PR offensive is hurting her cause. The continued success of her "legislation" from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court bench rests on the citizens' apathy. When she talks, average folks see The empress has no clothes. They do not share a deep-founded belief that judicial independence is a license to ordain Political Correctness as natural law. They will more and more question the legitimacy of Goodridge.
But Massachusetts legislators are not a courageous lot. There is only a sliver of hope that they will follow through with that most meager of compromises: changing the terminology of same-sex marriage to civil unions.
Controversy in the news and turmoil in the state government are to be welcomed by those of us opposed to Margaret Marshall's undemocratic cultural mayhem. It's a stalling game.
Some say the younger generation with their greater willingness to normalize homosexuality, which I do not begrudge, will be decisive. But I'm guessing and hoping that cooler heads will prevail. There is developing a firmer grasp on the value of norms, the value of culture, and the need to quell cultural radicalists.
On the other hand it's okay for leftists to slime conservative judges as "extremists." Justice Marshall doesn't see that as threatening and intimidating at all, at all. She probably stokes such activities and strokes their participants, in phone calls and emails behind the scenes. She probably thinks it's simply marvelous.
Post a Comment
<< Home