News Analysis: Countdown to the Firing of SJC Judges
Margaret Marshall’s Conscience Is Troubled by Her Illegal Role in Imposing Homosexual “Marriage”; She’s Aware that She Must Be Fired!
     Each time Atty. Ed Pawlick personally appeared before Margaret Marshall in 2002 and 2003, she wanted him out of there as quickly as possible. He was her conscience come to life.
     Besides, she was worried that Pawlick might actually get one of Marshall's Justices upset over the whole sordid affair, which so far had gone very smoothly with the help of Marshall’s husband, Tony Lewis, who worked for Pinch Sulzberger, the Chairman of the New York Times/Boston Globe conglomerate. Tony Lewis was the premiere columnist at the Times for about fifty years.
     As Chief of the SJC, Judge Marshall knows that every Amendment to our state Constitution must be approved by the voters before it can become law. There are only two ways to do that.
     1) Gather tens of thousands of signatures on a Petition, like the folks did at Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage (MCM).
     2) Or, any Senator or Representative can introduce an Amendment for their colleagues on Beacon Hill to transmit to the voters.
     When option (1) is followed (almost always) and signatures from the voters are gathered like MCM did, the measure must then be approved by the Senate and House as proper for a vote in order to send it to the voters. But only 25% of the legislators need approve.
     The Senators and Representatives enjoy making their duties look complicated and mysterious, but it’s really quite simple. The legislators meet for two-year periods, each of which they call a “session.” Two consecutive “sessions” must approve an Amendment before it goes to the voters at the polls the following November.
     That’s why MCM asked Justice Marshall in their lawsuit in the fall of 2002 to do something, anything, to stop this destruction of our representative government. That session of the Legislature was about to expire. The SJC is the guardian of our rights and our liberties. If not them, who else will protect us?
     If Margaret Marshall could not think of anything to do, Atty. Pawlick suggested it was clear that the session from 2001-2002 had abandoned and forfeited its right to vote. It couldn’t just sit on its hands and ignore the Constitution. It had violated its required Constitutional duty to take a vote on the Marriage Amendment. But that didn't bother Justice Marshall.
     The two-year session that MCM first dealt with began at the beginning of 2001 and ended in December 2002. The next session went from the beginning of 2003 to the end of 2004. The newest is 2005 to the end of 2006.

     Which Judge(s) Was Bothered?
      All of this must have bothered someone on the seven-person SJC. Those judges could have dismissed Atty. Pawlick’s suit without comment. Why bother to write an opinion? Margaret Marshall didn’t want to do it. She wanted to just quietly dismiss Pawlick.  
     But the decision from the SJC was unanimous, 7-0. Why did Judge Marshall join in? How could this be? Did someone on the SJC have some doubts?
      Judge Marshall wouldn’t want anyone to know if there possibly might be dissension. This Court was proud of the fact that it tried to avoid conflict within the Court. Marshall didn’t want anyone to know it if there was possible dissension on homosexual “marriage.” So she also agreed to the opinion. It is recorded as a 7-0 decision.
     That left Atty. Pawlick puzzled as to how this could be. A 7-0 decision with Judge Marshall joining in!?! Something had changed. Obviously, all the judges were not totally in favor of homosexual “marriage.” Which one (or ones) of the seven had doubts about what Margaret Marshall had planned? He never did discover that until Margaret Marshall filed her opinion in Nov. 2003.