The election to replace former Sen. Cheryl Jacques of Needham is set to go forward on
March 2 after the Supreme Judicial Court on Wednesday rejected a Republican Party lawsuit
that alleged the date was unconstitutionally set by the state Senate.
The SJC made its decision just one day after hearing oral arguments in the case. The
justices found Senate lawmakers did not violate the Constitution when they set the date
before Jacques had formally stepped down from her seat.
Republican Party officials were also upset because they said the March 2 date, coinciding
with the presidential primary, would give an unfair advantage to the Democratic
contender.
Senate President Robert Travaglini, who had defended the date as constitutional, read
parts of the ruling aloud to his colleagues in the Senate chamber on Wednesday.
State House News Service
Wednesday, January 7, 2003
SJC rejects GOP lawsuit in Jacques election
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
This past Saturday in the CLT Update ("Scheming Senate Democrats plot to steal
election") I wrote:
Senate Democrats today outnumber Republicans 34-6 but
that isn't enough. The risk of possibly losing even one of those
seats in a fair election -- leaving them with only a mere 33-7
majority -- has senselessly driven all but one (Sen. Brian Joyce,
D-Milton) to trash the Constitution, democracy, and any remnant of
integrity to which they might lay claim. By Friday, when the state's
highest court is expected to rule on this desperate and unseemly
spectacle, we should know whether we are indeed "a government of
laws," or instead "a government of men."
We didn't have to wait long. The oral arguments were
heard yesterday and a decision that was expected by Friday came down ...
today, only one day later.
I honestly thought this was a slam-dunk for the
Republican State Committee -- that the facts were just too indisputably
clear. But, now remnants of integrity have again been further shredded
for both the Senate Democrats, and for our state's laughable "high
court" -- the State Judicial Kangaroo Court.
When we can't respect the legislative branch, and
recognize that "justice" in the courts is a sham, high court
justices always beholden to their paymasters, just how far behind can
disregard for and breakdown of the law and even anarchy be?
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
-- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
July 4, 1776
What would the founding fathers of this nation, who
"mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor,"
think of today's spineless SJKC decision?
In Massachusetts, where once long ago it all began.
What would John Adams, a drafter of both
constitutions, think?
|
|
|
Chip
Ford |
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For
more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml