Conservative “Freedom”: The Constitution Allows Execution of the Innocent

Ken O’Brien

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas

Conservative activists have struggled mightily to populate the Supreme Court with jurists who share their views. The judicial philosophies favored have been termed “strict constructionists” and “originalists”.

What Did The SJC Rule?

Ken O’Brien

According to an article in today’s Worcester Telegram & Gazette, “The state’s highest court yesterday signed off on its earlier decision denying Sturbridge lawyer Kirstie L. Pecci’s request for a judicial review of the Board of Health’s decision to allow more solid waste into the Barefoot Road landfill.”

But, looking at the online docket report raises some questions.

Entries 21 and 22 on the report read as follows:

…And Justice For?

Ken O’Brien

Somewhat forgotten in the midst of the appalling antics of town government of late have been the developments in certain pending legal matters relating to the Southbridge landfill site assignment and the composition of the town’s Board of Health.

As regards the landfill site assignment, despite the premature crowing of devotees of the current regime, the decision initially rendered by the Massachusetts Supreme Court has been withdrawn.

Massachusetts Supreme Court Dismisses Landfill Appeal

by Ken O'Brien

The Massachusetts Supreme Court today issued its ruling in the case of BOARD OF HEALTH OF STURBRIDGE & others vs. BOARD OF HEALTH OF SOUTHBRIDGE & another. In its decision the court decided that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit.

Writing for the majority, Justice Bostsford stated, " In July of 2008, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Superior Court from a decision of the defendant board of health of Southbridge (board) approving a "minor modification" to the site assignment for an existing landfill and related processing facility in that town under G. L. c. 111, § 150A (§ 150A). The plaintiffs brought their appeal pursuant to G. L. c. 30A, § 14. In response to a motion to dismiss, two judges in the Superior Court ruled that as parties before the board, the plaintiffs had standing to bring their complaint for judicial review to the Superior Court. However, the second judge (motion judge) concluded that the plaintiffs' challenges to the board's decision failed on the merits. Final judgment entered on December 16, 2009, affirming the board's decision.