News Analysis: Countdown to the Firing of SJC Judges
Sulzberger’s Panic Was Seen Immediately
            We always knew Marshall would be abandoned if things got tough for Pinch Sulzberger.
              Evidence of Sulzberger’s panic came almost immediately after the Presidential election. On Saturday, Nov. 13, 2004, a strange article was written by a columnist at the Globe, Alex Beam, in which Justice Judith Cowin was blamed for the Democratic loss. This is the first paragraph in its entirety:
            “I was intrigued to learn that, after all the crocodile tears were shed for John Kerry's wrenching electoral loss, the name on everyone's lips was not Margaret Marshall, but . . . Judith Cowin.”
            So who is Judith Cowin? And how could she help Pinch Sulzberger escape blame for the Democratic loss?

Is Cowin Responsible for Gay Marriage ?!?
            Judge Cowin is the “moderate” Republican who made it a 3-3 tie among the Associate Justices and allowed Chief Justice Marshall to move forward on the plan to impose “gay marriage” upon the country. After Marshall voted, this gave her a very slim 4-3 decision. (Atty. Pawlick warned Marshall in open court twice in 2002-2003 not to do that or she would suffer wrath from the citizens.)
              The 3 judges who voted against Marshall (all Massachusetts liberals) were unusually passionate in their opposition, saying that she had no power to make this illegal ruling.
              The dissension was kept very quiet by the Times/Globe empire of Sulzberger and the rest of the compliant media. This was a unanimous decision written by the “courageous civil rights activist”, Judge Margaret Marshall, as far as they were concerned. (The “compliant media” includes the Associated Press in which the Sulzbergers are very active at the national level.)

What Did Alex Beam Say about Cowin?
            The article by Alex Beam about Judge Cowin was totally incoherent. He was forced to write it in a hurry even though he didn’t agree with it or know what to say. So he wrote that some people (almost everyone would be more accurate) were saying that Judge Marshall’s ruling on gay marriage was the reason for the defeat of John Kerry. If Marshall’s decision did cause the defeat of the Democrats, then the true villain among all Democrats everywhere is the New York Times and its inept, bungling Chairman. By what strange reason does Sulzberger believe he can get out of this if Judy Cowin is blamed?
           The next paragraph of the compliant columnist begins: “What about Justice Cowin?”
            Well, what about Judy Cowin?!? She is a registered Republican who was characterized by the Globe as a “conservative” when she was appointed in 1999. Are we to believe that Judy Cowin voted for the gay marriage ruling only to hurt the Democrats?
            That’s how the strange article ended --- with total incoherence.

Judge Marshall Came Out of Seclusion to Protect Herself
            On the day that the Beam column ran, Judge Marshall came out of seclusion in a vain effort to protect herself. She shouldn’t have bothered because she obviously wasn’t ready. It was like the Oral Argument all over again. She told A.P. reporter Jennifer Peters:: "I think you simply do the best that you can, you decide the case and you move onto the next case." [sic]
            According to A.P.: “Marshall said she welcomes scrutiny of the court and said the ability of the public to criticize its decisions is one of the great hallmarks of an independent judiciary in a healthy democracy. ‘I think judges play an important constitutional role, and the label that somebody puts onto that is one that varies from time to time. I think as long as I'm not viewed as a lazy judge,’ [sic] she said. ‘I - like, I think, 350 other judges - do the best they can to uphold the constitution, and the statutes and the common law in this commonwealth,’ she said, ‘and then we move on to the next case.’” (That is not a mistake on our part. Marshall was so distraught that she repeated what she had already told the A.P. reporter, who printed it verbatim.)
            Nowhere did A.P. ever note that the vote actually was a tie among the other six judges, with Marshall breaking the tie and imposing her will upon the state and nation. As far as A.P. was concerned, it was a major victory for “civil rights.” It quoted many “right-wingers” who disagreed with A.P.’s interpretation of the event but nowhere did it reveal that the most passionate of those dissenters were three liberal judges right on Marshall’s court. Nor did it note that the owners of the Times sit on all the national boards of A.P. and control it at every level.
              It’s more evidence that Sulzberger was in great stress, just like the personal attack against the daughter of Attorney Pawlick on April 14, 2004, which was the lead story at the top of the Business section. In it, another columnist, Steve Bailey, attempted a hatchet job in which he told lawyers not to purchase the newspaper of Pawlick’s daughter, Lawyers Weekly, because it would somehow help Pawlick, the “screwiest fringe.” But it was not in Bailey’s heart and he actually gave Pawlick’s book, “Libel by New York Times,” excellent publicity. Not only was that story nasty, it was a violation of the law to attempt to hurt Pawlick’s daughter because of her father’s personal beliefs. Never before had Sulzberger even acknowledged that Pawlick existed. It also showed that Pinch was in great stress and coming “unglued” as he went about his nationwide battle against his father and other ancestors, who were all labeled by him as homophobes.