MA highest court to "broadcast" online . . . same-sex marriage case

[TaleWgnDg]

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has issued the (below) "for immediate release" announcement, dated Wednesday, April 27, 2005:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 27, 2005

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Partnership with Suffolk University Law School Offers Live Internet Broadcasts of Court Proceedings

Boston, MA - The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in partnership with Suffolk University Law School, today announced the establishment of a pilot program to provide attorneys, students, media, and the general public with live Internet broadcasts of oral arguments before the Supreme Judicial Court. This is the first time in Massachusetts that the Supreme Judicial Court and a law school have collaborated on such a technologically-advanced venture.

Suffolk University Law School, which was selected following the Court’s request for proposals, will broadcast the live arguments from its website beginning in May. The arguments can be viewed and heard online during the May sitting of the Supreme Judicial Court at www.suffolk.edu/sjc starting at 9:00 a.m. on May 2, 3, 5, and 6, 2005. A schedule and brief summary of the court cases to be broadcast are available on the website.

Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall said, " I am delighted that students, attorneys, and citizens everywhere will now have live access to our appellate proceedings. People yearn to understand how the judicial system works and web broadcasts will enable them to witness the live dialogue between Justices and lawyers on legal matters affecting everyone's lives. I applaud Suffolk University Law School for its willingness to partner with the Court in this new venture."

"Suffolk University Law School is honored to be in partnership with the Supreme Judicial Court on this unique and purposeful program," said Suffolk University Law School Dean Robert H. Smith. "What intrigues me the most is that people of all ages and from all walks of life will now have an opportunity to hear attorneys' presentations and justices' questions without setting foot in the courtroom. This allows everyone to experience an important part of the appellate process firsthand in a timely manner."

The Supreme Judicial Court, originally called the Superior Court of Judicature, was established in 1692 and is the oldest appellate court in continuous existence in the Western Hemisphere. Massachusetts operates under the oldest, still functioning written constitution in the world - the Massachusetts Constitution was adopted by the Legislature in 1780. The Supreme Judicial Court, the Appeals Court and the Social Law Library, the nation's oldest law library established in 1803, are housed in the newly renovated John Adams Courthouse in Pemberton Square in Boston. The courthouse was dedicated on March 31, 2005.

Suffolk University Law School is located in the heart of downtown Boston just blocks from the Adams Courthouse. For 100 years, it has remained one of the most respected names in legal education. Its expansive curriculum - more than 200 upper-level elective courses, specialty concentrations, joint-degree programs and an LL.M. in global technology - enables students to gain a strong academic foundation. A wide range of hands-on experience, including clinical programs, internships and moot court competitions, provides students the practical skills necessary to succeed. Suffolk Law's diverse and supportive community comes together in Sargent Hall, which was dedicated in 1999 and is among the country's most inspiring, modern and technologically advanced settings for the study of law.

http://www.mass.gov/courts/press/pr042705_print.html

_______________________________________________________

Goodridge same-sex marriage case to be re-visited

One of the first online oral arguments to be heard on Monday, May 2, 2005 before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) will be the Goodridge (same-sex marriage) case. Yes, the case will be re-visited, yet, again.

The Roman Catholic Church is challenging the SJC's Goodridge opinion which was decided in November 2003. The Roman Catholic Church (in Massachusetts) through one of its corporations entitled The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, Inc., Executive Director C.J. Doyle (Massachusetts corporation ID #000511454), has petitioned the SJC to stop same-sex marriages in Massachusetts.

The Roman Catholic Church "seeks standing to stay the judgment in Goodridge during the pendency of the process to amend the Massachusetts constitution." (http://www.suffolk.edu/sjc/summaries050205.html)

The Roman Catholic Church/The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts Inc. claim is that the introduction of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2003 under the Goodridge court opinion, before the voters have the chance to weigh-in on the pending constitutional amendment in 2006, effectively disenfranchises voters. However, before that issue is orally argued, the Court will most likely seek whether Executive Director Doyle of The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, Inc. has legal authority (legal standing) to argue such a legal challenge as they claim. (See also: http://www.glad.org/News_Room/press89-02-11-05.html)

The case is Doyle v. Goodridge and its SJC docket number is SJC-09254.






.

[paineinthearse]

1. Massachusetts Constitution was adopted by the Legislature in 1780.

Written by John Adams. Catholic church, DONT'T FUCK WITH MY CONSTITUTION.

[TaleWgnDg]

2. The SJC has issued its opinion in the Catholic Church v. Goodridge case

.
Massachusetts highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court, has issued its opinion today, Friday, May 27, 2005, in C.J. Doyle, Executive Director of The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, Inc., (Roman Catholic Church) v. Goodridge, et al same-sex marriage case. This (3rd) time around the Roman Catholic Church had requested the SJC to issue a stay order to stop the SJC's prior ruling allowing same-sex marriage to go forward in Massachusetts. The Roman Catholic Church also requested that the SJC expedite its order forthwith. This case was before the SJC on oral argument on April 28, 2005.

Both requests of the Roman Catholic Church were denied by the SJC in today's opinion. I've included the entire SJC (slip) opinion below:

"C. Joseph DOYLE vs. Hillary GOODRIDGE & others. (FN1)

"(Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, docket #)09254

"(issued) May 27, 2005.

"Practice, Civil, Moot case, Stay of proceedings, Rescript from appellate court, Judicial discretion. Supreme Judicial Court, Appeal from order of single justice.

"Robert J. Muise, of Michigan, & Chester Darling (Brian Fahling, of Mississippi, with them) for the plaintiff.

"Michele E. Granda (Gary D. Buseck with her) for Hillary Goodridge & others.

"John R. Hitt, Assistant Attorney General, for Department of Public Health.

"RESCRIPT.

"In Goodridge v. Department of Pub. Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003), we declared 'that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution.' Id. at 344. We vacated a summary judgment that had been entered in the Superior Court for the defendants in that action, and remanded the case to the Superior Court for the entry of a judgment consistent with our opinion. Id. We further provided that the '(e)ntry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of opinion.' Id. The petitioner, C. Joseph Doyle, was not a party in the Goodridge action.

"In April, 2004, before the court-ordered stay of the entry of judgment had expired, Doyle petitioned a single justice of this court to extend further the stay "pending the outcome of the process to amend the Commonwealth's Constitution." (FN2) The single justice denied that request on several grounds. First, he stated that he, as a single justice, did not have the authority to change the specific directive that the full court had given to the Superior Court in its rescript, after the rescript had already issued to the Superior Court. (FN3) He further stated that, even if he had authority to grant the relief requested, he would exercise his discretion to deny the relief sought by Doyle because (1) as a matter of Massachusetts law, an individual, such as Doyle, who is not a party to a case is not permitted to attempt to alter, amend, or stay an appellate court's rescript in the case, and that Doyle's attempt to do so was, 'at base, an improper collateral attempt by a nonparty to alter the full court's rescript and affect the outcome'; (2) Doyle's claim that his right to participate in the constitutional amendment process would be diluted without a further stay was speculative and remote, and, therefore, he lacked standing as a matter of Massachusetts law to pursue the requested relief; and (3) the request for a stay for a minimum of two years while the constitutional amendment process ran its course was unreasonable in the circumstances.

"Doyle timely appealed to the full court from the single justice's denial of his petition. In a 'memorandum in support of appeal' that he filed shortly after filing his notice of appeal, he requested that the full court 'further stay the entry of its judgment ... pending the outcome of the constitutional amendment process.' In response to that memorandum, we issued an order, among other things, denying his request for a further stay. (FN4)

"The limited issue before us in this appeal is whether the single justice erred or abused his discretion when he denied Doyle's request for a further stay of entry of the judgment after rescript in the Superior Court. That question is purely academic at this point. The judgment, entry of which Doyle sought to have stayed, was in fact entered in the Superior Court on May 17, 2004, pursuant to the terms of our rescript. We therefore dismiss his appeal as moot. See Rasten v. Northeastern Univ., 432 Mass. 1003 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1168 (2001). Even if we were to consider the point on the merits, we would conclude that the single justice was correct and well within his discretion in denying Doyle's request for the reasons given.

"To the extent that Doyle is now attempting to shift focus and expand the limited scope of the appeal by asking the full court to 'stay' the judgment -- effectively, to recall and amend our rescript and vacate the judgment that has already been entered -- we decline to do so. We previously denied his request for a further stay of entry of the judgment before the judgment entered in the Superior Court. Nothing has transpired in the interim that materially changes the situation or which warrants the truly extraordinary measures sought now.

"Appeal dismissed.

"1. Julie Goodridge, David Wilson, Robert Compton, Michael Horgan, Edward Balmelli, Maureen Brodoff, Ellen Wade, Gary Chalmers, Richard Linnell, Heidi Norton, Gina Smith, Gloria Bailey, Linda Davies, Department of Public Health, and the Commissioner of Public Health.

"2. The process to amend the Massachusetts Constitution in response to our decision began in February, 2004, with the Legislature's consideration, at a constitutional convention, of various proposed amendments.

"3. The rescript issued to the Superior Court on December 16, 2003, twenty-eight days after the date of the rescript. See Mass. R.A.P. 23, as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975). There was no petition for rehearing or request to stay issuance of the rescript. Doyle did not file his request for a further stay of the entry of the judgment until April 20, 2004, four months after the rescript issued to the trial court.

"4. We also denied his request, made in his notice of appeal, to expedite this appeal."

______________________________________________________

This SJC outcome was expected; however, it was good that the SJC allowed this argument to be heard. Why is that so? Because it gives all parties and all of us the chance to say that the Roman Catholic Church was given its separate day in court to be heard no matter how irrational and against relevant Massachusetts law were the Roman Catholic Church arguments as presented.

This case that the Roman Catholic Church brought before the SJC about same-sex marriage was so damn off-the-wall, legally, (its outcome was *yaaawwwn* expected) that it didn't make the local nightly newscast on any of 6 television channels in Greater Boston.

My question is where's the outrage? Why the hell do the Roman Catholic parishioner's who put their money into the basket each and every Sunday or give donations otherwise -- where's the outrage of ill money spent for ill legal arguments. This is politics for the ignorant, not legalities, people. Where's the outrage?




.