Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Chief Justice Margaret Marshall to retire in October

By

Chief Justice Marshall held a press conference this AM to announce her retirement; she is 65 and has been a member of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for fourteen years.

She has been a defender of the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel, access to justice, and civil rights.  Her years as Chief Justice were turbulent, and her legal legacy is significant.

Thank you for your service, Chief Justice Marshall.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Speaking about the tough financial shape the courts are in, Marshall said, “If you occupy any position like this, there will be good times and challenging times.” Marshall said judicial leadership and systemic changes leave the courts “in a much better position to manage through this very, very difficult time.”

    “Our nation has suffered and is continuing to suffer one of the greatest economic challenges in decades. The capacity of our country to fund the way state governments function is particularly vulnerable. Within that system, how the judicial branch is funded is a particular challenge,” Marshall said.

    She added, “At the present time, because of the severe fiscal constraints … it’s going to be very difficult for our judges, our clerks, our registrars, judicial staff, everybody in the system, to continue to deliver justice at the same pace we have become accustomed to in Massachusetts.”

    Asked about challenges for the next chief justice, she said improving court technology and the condition of courthouses would be major issues and said an increasing number of defendants not represented by lawyers was an ongoing issue.

    <

    p>The Judicial Branch of government should NOT be treated like a mere agency.  A fully independent and functional, funded Judicial Branch is essential to the rule of law.

    <

    p>These trying times demand a strong Chief Justice, and one well grounded in separation of powers, checks and balances, and committed to the rule of law, not of men.

    <

    p>Where is John Adams when we need him, anyway?

    <

    p>This appointment will create a legacy, as Weld’s appointment of Marshall created a legacy, that may be the most important act of Patrick’s governorship.

  2. The retirement is effective in October.  Does that give enough time for Patrick to choose her successor?  And who will be the next Chief, will that be the new guy, like Roberts was appointed directly to Chief Justice, or will it be one of the anonymous other judges (how many are there, anyway?)

    <

    p>At 65 and with a husband in declining health, she certainly has understandable reasons and is totally justified in retiring four years before the mandatory retirement age of 70, and maybe she’d be retiring even if this weren’t an election year.

    <

    p>But if the timing is to make sure that it’s Patrick who chooses her replacement, that indicates a near-panic level of uncertainty that Patrick will be re-elected.  But it’s hard to see how Baker would choose anyone particularly different, given his “more-to-the-left-than-Obama-on-social-issues” libertarianism, and seeing that she herself was appointed by Baker’s mentor, so what’s she afraid of?  Obviously, she’s afraid that Cahill will win and appoint that O’Brien guy, or Mihos or EBIII (no way he’d appoint Garrett Quinn, btw)

    • From the Globe story:

      <

      p>

      Marshall said at a news conference that her husband, former New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis, had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, and she was leaving “so that Tony and I may enjoy our final seasons together.”

      <

      p>I’d say that her choice of the word “seasons” means that her decision is unrelated to any estimate of Governor Patrick’s re-election prospects.

      <

      p>(And there are 7 Justices.)

      • No one would blame her if she stayed on as Chief Justice but pretty much worked from home and stayed with her husband until January so that the next Governor could appoint her replacement, if say it was Kerry Healey who was Governor right now.  I think we expect Supreme Court judges to time their retirements based on who would name their replacement.  I would imagine that’s what she’s going to be doing from now to October, so what’s a few more months?

    • I think you are greatly overestimating the political significance of an SJC appointment, even Chief Justice.  The press will dutifully pay attention, sort of, and lawyers will care a lot (as they should).  But this is not the US Supreme Court, and the Governor’s Council (which will hold the confirmation hearings) is not the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Outside the legal community, the number of people who see this issue as even a modest factor in their decision in November will not exceed low single digits.

      <

      p>So I seriously doubt that the election year timing has anything to do with it, or that Patrick’s choice will become any sort of election issue.  I suspect that this is one of those rare cases where the reason given for retirement — “to spend more time with my family” — is actually true.

    • But if the timing is to make sure that it’s Patrick who chooses her replacement, that indicates a near-panic level of uncertainty that Patrick will be re-elected.

      <

      p>One woman’s decision to retire doth not equal an electoral “near-panic” of any kind. That’s really very silly. To be honest, even if she were doing this because she were worried about Patrick’s reelection chances, it’s not she’s any kind of an authority on electoral politics. She’s a judge, not a campaign manager. That said, I extremely doubt she’s doing this because of Patrick’s election, whether she’s panicked or not… let’s not forget that she was appointed by a Republican.

      <

      p>

      Obviously she’s afraid Cahill will win.

      <

      p>I think less people in the Patrick camp are afraid Cahill will win than they are afraid he’ll drop out of the race because he’s going nowhere… which seems the far likelier scenario right now.

  3. Maybe by being retiring and being replaced before the election, she takes herself and the court out of the election politics, whereas if she merely announced her pending retirement but tried to stay on, that would make the role of the court a political issue, possibly it come down to an election about the Goodridge decision, and that could only benefit Cahill.

      1.  It WILL be a direct appointment “like chief Justice Roberts” probably… though it could be one of the other Justices, each very accomplished and well known in their own right, some of them with long term service as judges on the Superior court;

      <

      p>2.  Here is the “cast” of Massachusetts Supreme Court Justices:

      <

      p>A.  Margaret Marshall herself  As a former anti-apartheid activist and judicial scholar, I do not think her timing is political.  Her union with Anthony Lewis, the author of Gideon’s Trumpet is a well known, long term union of unusual depth, commitment, and agape.  Margaret Marshall and Anthony Lewis have put one another first for decades.

      <

      p>B.  Roderick Ireland the first African American Justice appointed to the SJC in its 300 year history.  Formerly, a judge in the Juvenile Court well acquainted with the role of the court in addressing the social needs of the community before they become lethal emergencies.  He is a graduate of Columbia University Law School, also holding an LLM from Harvard Law School.

      <

      p>C.  Francis X. Spina  Justice Spina is a native of Western Massachusetts, with a degree from UMASS Amherst and Boston College Law School.  Prior to serving on the SJC, he has worked in legal services, as a prosecutor, as a city solictor and as a judge.  He has unusual familiarity with governance as well as law.

      <

      p>D.  Judith A. Cowin Justice Cowin is a native of Boston.  She has an undergraduate degree from Wellesley College, and is a graduate of Harvard Law School.  Her area of expertise is mental health law, and considerable experience with criminal jury trials as a prosecutor.

      <

      p>E.  Robert D. Cordy  Justice Cordy’s undergraduate degree is from Dartmouth and his J.D. is from Harvard Law.  Justice Cordy began is career representing indigent accused for the Mass Defenders.  As a federal prosecutor, he headed the anti-corruption unit unit when William Weld was the U.S. Attorney.  Justice Cordy was also Chief Legal Counsel to Governor Weld, and is extremely well acquainted with the budget process, and political process on Beacon Hill, and a tough-minded jurist with serious experience heading a large staff.  While I don’t expect anyone to ask me, I think Justice Cordy would be a superb choice to step up when Chief Justice Marshall retires.  He represents an unusual combination of administrative and legal experience.

      <

      p>F. Justice Margot Botsford is one of the newer justices, appointed in 2007 by Governor Patrick.  Her undergraduate degree is from Barnard College; her law degree from Northeastern.  She is a thoughtful, careful legal writer and researcher who as Special Master in the Hancock v. Driscoll case issued a 300 page Master’s decision.

      <

      p>G.  Ralph D. Gants  Justice Gants graduated Summa Cum Laude from Harvard College.  He holds a degree in Criminology from Cambridge University in the United Kingdom, and a law degree from Harvard.  Justice Gants also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney heading the anti-corruption unit.  Judge Gants has a reputation as a “judge’s judge”, and experience in almost every sector of law, including as Chief Administrative Justice of the Business Litigation Session.  Judge Gant’s is perhaps the best legal writer on the SJC Bench.

      • How are they ever going to decide controversial decisions now that you’ve exposed who they are to the whole world? Hopefully not too many people will see this.

        • What part of ‘public’ in ‘public office’ don’t you understand?  These aren’t signers of a petition… their public employees, the work of which the voter should know if only to evaluate the performance of the officials that appointed them.

          • Come on, how could anyone not recognize the joke?  Do you really think that I thought the other justices were actually anonymous?  No sense of humor, or just closed-minded animosity to me?

          • What I was getting at by calling the other judges “anonymous” was that Marshall is the face of the court, the only name most people could name.  (Heck, five of the seven justices don’t even have their own wikipedia page!)  She’s probably 1000 times more famous than the others, and her name is synonymous with Massachusetts Supreme Court, and with gay marriage.  So your nice list is useful to many people, but I could probably have named four or five of them myself, so yeah, I was being silly, sorry.

    • and that could only benefit Cahill.”

      <

      p>I assume, by saying this, you mean that Cahill’s more socially conservative than his opponents?

      <

      p>What makes you think that would “benefit” him? Last time I checked, marriage equality enjoyed widespread support in Massachusetts and the sky isn’t falling, all these years later.

      <

      p>Don’t Get Cute… I think you’re being too cute, here. Let’s not make any mountains out of molehills. She’s leaving for family reasons, legitimate family reasons. This speculation is not only silly, but borderline inane.  

Archives