|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.tv.simpsons » Chief Justice Margaret Marshall Is Not Competent!
| Chief Justice Margaret Marshall Is Not Competent! [message #246153] |
Mi, 05 April 2006 00:53 |
|
Chief Justice Margaret Marshall Is Not Competent!
We Were Told That by Justice Martha Sosman in 2003;
The Newest Ploy by Marshall to Stay in Power Makes It Apparent to All;
Chief Justice Admits Becoming Famous by Using Her Youth and Gender
We were warned by Justice Martha Sosman in 2003 in a highly
unusual opinion, that Margaret Marshall does not have the intelligence
necessary to be the Chief Justice of the state's Supreme Judicial
Court.
With her newest ploy last week, the Chief Justice
demonstrated that she will do anything to stay in power.
Sosman's warning was startling because she is very
supportive of the plight of homosexuals and would not do anything to
hurt them. In contrast to Marshall, she is widely regarded as the most
capable member of the SJC, always alert and asking penetrating
questions of the lawyers who appear before it, without ever appearing
to be bored.
It is therefore distressing to many that Justice Sosman is
now on the disabled list as she seeks to recover from an illness that
some attribute to the stress of seeing her beloved Court so damaged by
the Chief Justice.
One of Three Dissenters in 2003
In her initial opinion about gay marriage in 2003, Justice
Sosman joined the other two dissenters, thus creating a 3-3 tie among
the six Associate Justices. This forced the reluctant Marshall to break
the tie. She was reluctant because everyone knew she had made a public
promise (complete with photographs and a transcript) to her homosexual
friend, Mary Bonauto, to vote for gay marriage if Bonauto brought such
a case in Massachusetts.
Therefore, if Marshall had one more judge on her side, she
could take the "high road" and recuse herself from participating in
the case. But with the Associate Justices evenly split, it would be
messy to do so. Mary Bonauto had lost in the trial court. That meant
that the decision of the trial judge probably must be affirmed and
Bonauto would lose.
That explains why the gay marriage case lingered and
lingered while Marshall tried to decide what to do. It was worse
because the Chief Justice had been admitted to Yale Law School as a
"token" woman in 1973 when the schools were frantically seeking
qualified women. The simple truth is that Marshall is not very bright
and lacks the intelligence to write an opinion in an epoch case which
made such a dramatic change to American society.
Marshall did not become a U.S. citizen until three years
after she graduated from Yale.
Sosman's Powerful Words Never Reported by Press
Justice Sosman exposed Chief Justice Marshall in her first
opinion about gay marriage but she really let loose in the second
opinion of Feb. 2004 after the state Senate had written that they were
confused by Marshall's first opinion.
The Senate said they needed guidance as to whether their
proposed "civil unions" (which would be identical to "marriage"
in every way except for the name) would satisfy the Constitutional
requirements as stated in Judge Marshall's first opinion.
The reasons that necessitated the removal of Marshall were
clearly stated at that time by Justice Sosman in her opinion of
February 3, 2004.
However, Sosman's words have never been publicized by any
newspaper, including the New York Times/Boston Globe conglomerate,
which is the prime force behind gay marriage across the nation.
Justice Sosman did not specifically say that Marshall should be
removed from office because that is a decision for the Legislature, but
Sosman clearly demonstrated how the Chief Justice had violated her oath
of office.
(Sosman also noted that the opponents of gay marriage had been
squandering their time in a fruitless effort to defend the word
"marriage." She noted that "civil unions" ARE "marriage,"
regardless of what anyone calls them. She cited Romeo and Juliet to
remind everyone that "a rose by any other name would smell as
sweet." She told the citizens that the proposed law from the Senate
that the Court was being asked to consider would give same-sex couples
everything that married couples get. The only difference would be that
the Senate would call the new relationship a "civil union" instead of a
civil "marriage." Otherwise, they would be identical.)
State Will Be Thrown into Chaos by Illegal Power
Justice Sosman used very harsh words to describe the illegal
power that Justice Marshall had been using to impose her personal will
upon the state.
She said that Marshall's decision was not "rational" and was
"nonsensical." She said it destroyed the "fig leaf" of
Marshall's first opinion of November 18, 2003.
Sosman worried who else would apply for marriage. Although she did not
name who they might be, MassNews has worried publicly about that,
including two times before all the Justices of the SJC (including
Justice Sosman) when Atty. J. Edward Pawlick cautioned the seven
Justices about singling out just homosexuals to receive the benefits of
marriage when others also seek those benefits.
Some of the others who also want to be included are:
Those who love more than one woman and consequently desire more than
one wife.
Straight people who do not wish to follow any rules in regard to their
union, including the responsibility for children.
Those who desire group sex.
When Pawlick had asked that question in 2002 of the Vermont
legislative leader who had promoted civil unions, he replied that the
others hadn't been included in Vermont simply because they hadn't
asked to be.
Sosman Had to Use Marshall's "Buzz Words"
When Justice Sosman discussed the frailties of Justice
Marshall's decision, she had to include the "buzz" words which
Judge Marshall had used to intimidate everyone else, including most
lawyers, who know nothing about this arcane language, such as
"suspect classification" and "strict scrutiny."
The following is a tiny sample of the language that Justice
Sosman was forced to use. She was saying that even Justice Marshall
didn't understand these buzz words. It is clear that our readers will
not understand them either. Just think about reading an entire opinion
of this gobbledygook. The following is just one paragraph from the
Sosman opinion.
"ther types of persons, making
claims of a denial of equal protection will need to know whether they,
too, can qualify as a 'suspect' classification under that new test
and thereby obtain strict scrutiny analysis of any statute, regulation,
or program that uses that classification. No analysis of why sexual
orientation should be treated as a suspect classification was provided
in Goodridge , and none is provided today. Yet
that is, apparently, the interpretation that is now being given to
Goodridge. The footnote disclaimer of any resort to
'suspect classification' and corresponding 'strict scrutiny'
analysis, ante at n.3, rings hollow in light of the sweeping text of
today's answer."
Marshall Unable to Disagree with Justice Sosman
The term "fig leaf" was used by Sosman to describe what
Marshall was doing to confuse the pubic. She said that Marshall had
come to the point where she just "assumes" that discrimination
based on sexual orientation is prohibited by our Constitution. She no
longer bothered to try to prove it, because she can't.
Justice Sosman challenged Justice Marshall. She asked her to
"identify the new test" that she had "apparently adopted for
determining" who else would qualify to be "married." Sosman said
nothing has been given as to what the new test would be when bigamists
and others applied.
Justice Marshall was incapable of answering Justice Sosman. She
felt it necessary to insert the following (and highly unusual) footnote
to say she was unable to understand or to answer Sosman's erudite
critique. "In any event, we fail to understand why the separate
opinion chastises us for adopting the
constitutional test (rational basis) ..."
In other words, this entire debate about the foundation of our
society is dependent upon which buzz word a judge picks, "rational
basis," "strict scrutiny," "fundamental rights," "suspect
classifications," or a myriad of others.
According to Justice Sosman, "[Margaret Marshall] ASSUMES that
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited by our
Constitution" because she is unable to give a rational reason for
what she is attempting. Sosman says that Marshall's explanations
"ring hollow." [emphasis added)
It was as though Margaret Marshall was back in law school and
unable to answer the questions of her more erudite classmate. In
effect, she just replied: "BECAUSE, that's why."
Marshall's Opinion Last Week Was a Desperate Attempt to Stay in Power
Although Margaret Marshall is not intelligent enough to be
Chief Justice, she is wily enough to understand the ways of the world.
Having understood that her youth and her gender could be
used to raise her from a new immigrant to the halls of top power in
this country, she has served notice that she will not leave quietly.
Despite the fact that airplanes are constantly circling the
state and radio stations are joining to go "over the head" of her
powerful ally, Pinch Sulzberger at The New York Times Company, she is
still hoping that she can keep smiling long enough to pretend that
everything is fine in Massachusetts.
|
|
|
| Re: Chief Justice Margaret Marshall Is Not Competent! [message #246191 ] |
Mi, 05 April 2006 21:38 |
|
>> It was as though Margaret Marshall was back in law school and
>>unable to answer the questions of her more erudite classmate. In
>>effect, she just replied: "BECAUSE, that's why."
"SHUT UP, that's why."
There are no acronyms in Rob's latest posting, so I cannot respond with
outlandish, humorous acroynms of my own, like I usually do.
RWIDG Rob Wade Is Definitely Gay
SHRATS Stupid Homophobes Ruin alt.tv.simpsons
And so on ...
L=A2vix Xpac3 Mvx3vm
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 00:45:43 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,06168 Sekunden |
