A Good Nominee

Margaret Marshall, formerly Harvard's General Counsel, is awaiting confirmation as the chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC). A liberal jurist nominated by a Republican governor, Marshall has wide respect and should be confirmed. But now, just as when she was originally nominated as an associate, she is embroiled in controversy.

She originally encountered opposition to her place on the SJC bench when she was nominated as an associate in 1996. Some said then-Governor William F. Weld '66 should have nominated a African-American judge for the seat, since the Massachusetts bench had until that time been occupied entirely by white males, with only one exception. But many pointed to her stance on racial matters; prior to immigrating to the U.S., she was active in anti-apartheid matters in her native South Africa. And so despite her detractors, Marshall became the second woman ever to sit on the SJC bench.

Also recently, she withstood a challenge when Roman Catholic Cardinal Bernard Francis Law '53 wrote a private letter to Governor A. Paul Cellucci, expressing his concerns that she might have an anti-Catholic bias. Law was concerned because during her time as Harvard's General Counsel, Marshall reprimanded a Catholic professor at the law school for expressing anti-abortion views on Harvard letterhead.

When the cardinal's letter to Cellucci was leaked, Marshall reacted to the matter with typical spirit, class and tact. Rather than calling a press conference to respond to the matter, she simply called the cardinal and assured him that she had no anti-Catholic bias--and he took her at her word.

Marshall has also come under fire for some of her actions as Harvard's General Counsel. When some University guards filed complaints against Harvard, she picked her own former law firm to handle the investigation. Her subsequent report found that the University was not guilty of misconduct; but in 1997, a jury found that the racial discrimination that one guard had complained of led to his dismissal in 1993. Admittedly, Marshall showed poor judgement in selecting her former law firm to handle the investigation, but in this case, no permanent harm seems to have been done. It is also noteworthy that Marshall called for the original investigation voluntarily, seeking the truth of the matter.

Just when we might think Marshall has passed her trial by fire, she has drawn the ire of a state anti-abortion group, the Massachusetts Citizens for Life. The group has stated that they oppose her confirmation, saying that her impartiality regarding abortion cases is questionable. Marshall was at one time the member of a board of trustees at a Massachusetts home for unwed mothers where abortions are performed.

But throughout her career, Marshall has shown that she has a remarkable ability to do what judges are supposed to do--uphold the law. Her record shows an unrivaled depth and breadth of experience, legal and otherwise. In a July opinion, she upheld a law refusing health benefits to domestic partners while also pointing out that the law on the books may be outdated; she wrote, "A 'family' may no longer be constituted simply of a wage-earning father, his dependent wife and the couple's children."

Although both her original nomination to the court and her current selection have been mired by controversy, she has handled it smoothly. And her status as a veteran of the SJC counters those who say her experience is inadequate. Her confirmation as chief justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts can only strengthen the state's judicial branch.