FOES OF SSM TRY LONG-SHOT REMOVAL OF JUSTICES: From the Boston Globe

Twenty-eight days before the Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage goes into effect, diehard opponents will turn today to a radical, long-shot strategy: a bill to remove the four justices who penned the historic ruling.

The lone sponsor of the measure--Representative Emile J. Goguen, Democrat of Fitchburg--said he sees the "bill of address" as a tool to pressure members of the court to reconsider their landmark 4-3 decision or risk losing their judgeships. ...

The filing of the bill marks the most unusual expression yet of outrage with the SJC's ruling, which was derided as judicial activism by conservatives nationwide, including President Bush. Proponents of expanded rights for same-sex couples hailed the decision as the equivalent of other watershed decisions made during the civil rights movement. ...

While rarely exercised, the power to remove sitting judges is outlined in the state's 224-year-old constitution, which states that "the governor, with consent of the council, may remove [judges] upon the address of both houses of the legislature."

According to Camenker, who has researched bills of address, lawmakers have successfully removed judges six times since 1787, most recently in 1973, when the Legislature, governor, and governor's council voted to remove Dorchester Municipal Court Judge Jerome P. Troy. However, Troy was first disbarred and removed by the SJC.

Attempts to bring down SJC justices have been rare. The last time lawmakers successfully removed an SJC judge was 1803, Camenker said. The only other attempt made by the Legislature was in 1922, and it failed.

Richard C. Van Nostrand, president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, said that the bill of address route has been invoked rarely for a reason.

"We don't want to go down a path that would cause judges to fear removal from their position for making unpopular decisions," Nostrand said.

Goguen said the stakes in the case of gay marriage are so high that they should override such concerns.

Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, dismissed the bill as "absolute insanity."

"I can understand if our opponents don't like the decision, but our opponents have no rational basis for removing any of these judges," Isaacson said. "They were clearly doing their job and, quite frankly, doing it well. Their job, after all, is to determine what's constitutional or not. Our opponents are acting like sore losers."

more
posted by Eve at 3:40 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home