Martha B. Sosman, one of three Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court judges who voted against the landmark decision legalizing gay marriage in the state, has died, the court said Sunday. She was 56.

Sosman was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2005 and had been participating in some cases by watching Webcasts of oral arguments, reading legal briefs at home and talking with other justices and law clerks by telephone.

Republican Gov. Paul Cellucci hailed Sosman as a "conservative" jurist when he appointed her to the high court as an associate justice in 2000.

She said the argument to define gay partnerships as marriages versus civil unions was "a squabble over the names to be used."

Sosman was a former assistant U.S. attorney in Massachusetts and founded an all-women law firm in 1989, where she worked until she was appointed to the Superior Court in 1993.

Berndt, 56, owns the Maverick Farm in Sharon, a 16,000-tree property that's one of the largest maple producers in the state. He's planning on sugaring another 20 years before passing the property on to his children or a conservation group. But warmer winters are threatening to cut the tapping season over the next several decades and, with the migration of Southern tree species, crowd out maples over the next century.

What to do? Berndt, a member of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, heard about the environmental groups' lawsuit against two U.S. government agencies - the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corp. - for investing $32 billion in taxpayer money in overseas subsidies to such energy companies as Exxon Mobil Corp., General Electric Co., Halliburton and the now-defunct Enron.

According to the lawsuit, the two federal agencies should have followed the National Environmental Policy Act and reviewed the projected impacts of the resulting oilfields, pipelines and coal-fired power plants.

Had the government done so, it would have realized that the greenhouse-gas emissions from the subsidized fossil-fuel projects equal one-third of the nation's yearly output and almost 10 percent of the world's total, the lawsuit says.

Because scientists blame such gases for global warming, the review would have required the agencies to consider investing in alternatives such as renewable energy and efficiency projects.

Berndt supports such efforts. And so he and his wife, Anne, decided to join several other citizens and cities including Boulder, Colo., and Oakland, Calif., as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

"We're trying to stimulate some change in policy," he says. "The United States needs to be a leader in the world to bring solutions to climate change."

Berndt isn't the only Vermonter involved in the lawsuit. The Burlington law firm of Shems Dunkiel Kassel & Saunders is representing all the plaintiffs.

"What we're asking for isn't novel," lawyer Ronald Shems says. "We're hoping federal agencies start complying with federal laws."

And stop fueling global warming, Berndt adds.

"If my wife and I have no maple trees, we have no farm income, and the aesthetic value of the land will also be devastated," he says in court papers. "If climate change has the predicted impacts, we should start culling trees now as the timber market will become saturated rather quickly once maples start disappearing in large numbers. However, like many people, we are in denial because it is too depressing to consider the loss."

Lawyers argued the case in U.S. District Court in San Francisco last April. The hearing came after a judge rejected the government's claims that the case should be dismissed because the agencies hadn't taken any action subjecting them to judicial review and were exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act.

"We're just waiting for a decision," Shems says. "It can take a few weeks to approximately a year."

The government has declined to comment until a ruling is reached. Berndt, for his part, is hopeful, although he doesn't know how much time the maple industry has left.

"There are more people who are starting to get concerned," he says. "We know if we continue along the course we're on, ultimately at some point all the sugar makers will be out of business."

A fourth Army Ranger, Luke E. Sommer, who has a dual U.S.-Canadian citizenship is under house arrest in his mother's home in Peachland, B.C., and fighting extradition to the United States. 

Blum, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Franklin D. Burgess on June 8. Byrne, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit armed robbery, is scheduled to be sentenced on June 1.

According to court documents, Sommer recruited Palmer, Blum and two men from Canada, Tigra Robertson and Nathan Dunmall. Blum was recruited to drive the getaway car. Byrne was identified in court documents as a "consultant" for the Aug. 7, 2006, robbery.

Byrne was not present at the robbery, the U.S. attorney said, but he advised Sommer to abandon his original plan to rob a casino and identified the bank as a potential target. Byrne also drove Sommer, Robertson and Dunmall to the bus station to catch a bus to Canada.

"While driving to the bus station, Sommer told Byrne that robbing the bank was more thrilling than combat and said he could not have organized the robbery without Byrne's help," the U.S. attorney said.

Blum drove the getaway car -- his own -- during the robbery, according to prosecutors. The robbers had removed the rear license plate of the car but didn't remove the front one. A witness jotted down the license plate number and authorities traced the car to Blum.

Searches at the Army base near Tacoma turned up body armor and money from the bank in the barracks rooms of Blum and Chad Palmer, a fellow Ranger. In Sommer's room, investigators found body armor, $10,000 in cash, two AK-47s and two semiautomatic handguns.

Blum was arrested in Greenwood Village while visiting his family.

Robertson is scheduled for a change of plea hearing on March 12. Sommer and Dunmall are fighting extradition from Canada.

Bush refrained from mentioning his leftist nemesis when asked during a press conference after meeting with Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez whether Chavez should be considered a threat.

"I've come to South America and Central America to advance a positive, constructive diplomacy that is being conducted by my government on behalf of the American people," Bush said.

"I would call our diplomacy quiet and effective diplomacy."

Deeply unpopular in Latin America because of the Iraq war and U.S. trade and immigration policies, Bush is pushing a softer message aimed at improving his reputation and bolstering U.S. influence in the region.

Chavez blames U.S.-backed free-market policies for increasing poverty in Latin America and has embarked on a counter-tour during Bush's visit.

Bush traveled by helicopter on Saturday to meet Vazquez at his presidential retreat in Anchorena Park, some 125 miles (200 km) west of Montevideo.

Responding to a spate of deaths in clinical trials, the Food and Drug Administration yesterday issued its most severe warning possible for drugs widely used to treat anemia in kidney disease patients and cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

The "black box" warnings placed on the prescribing label for Amgen Inc.'s Epogen and Aranesp and Johnson & Johnson's Procrit are expected to result in more cautious dosing by doctors.

Use of the drugs has escalated as physicians have sought to improve the quality of life of anemic patients by using them to stimulate creation of energy-boosting red blood cells. Marketing by manufacturers has reinforced the trend. But the FDA said yesterday that recent clinical trials have shown treatment beyond recommended limits increases the risk of death from heart attack and stroke in kidney patients, and of tumor growth and death in some cancer patients.

The agency advised doctors to give patients the minimum dose required to reduce the need for blood transfusions. It said antianemia drugs should not be used in an attempt to improve the quality of life of cancer patients because those claims are unproven. The FDA allowed claims of lifestyle benefits to remain for kidney patients, but said it is re-examining the validity of patient questionnaires about factors used to support the claims.

Recent concerns about the potential dangers of antianemia drugs and their overuse have been heightened by Medicare reimbursement policies for kidney dialysis treatment, which provide a profit incentive for clinics to administer more Epogen.

Medicare loosened its policy last year to let clinics get paid even if patients exceed the FDA's recommended red blood cell limits. The National Kidney Foundation -- in a set of guidelines paid for by Amgen -- suggested last year that higher targets for red blood cell counts are appropriate, citing statistical studies that showed lower mortality. The foundation is revisiting those guidelines.

The new warnings would effectively reduce the red blood cell target to about 10 grams per deciliter, compared with the upper limit of 12 grams that remains on the label, and the 13 grams permitted under last year's updated Medicare policy. The warnings are advisory, and the targets are still left up to the discretion of physicians, the FDA said.

The FDA said it has alerted Medicare to its latest findings. A spokesman at Medicare, which spends about $2 billion annually on Epogen for dialysis patients, did not respond to a phone message yesterday.

Black box warnings, said Dr. Eric P. Winer, chief of the breast cancer center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, will likely make doctors more cautious about prescribing antianemia drugs.

"These are drugs that have been somewhat overused. I don't think it's been without some effort on the marketing end," he said. "There has been a tendency, I think, for patients, and to some extent health providers, to attribute more fatigue to anemia than deserves to be attributed."

The warnings tarnished the image of a class of drugs that was among the biopharmaceutical industry's first big triumphs and has generated billions of dollars for Amgen and Johnson & Johnson.

Aranesp, which accounted for $4.1 billion in sales last year, is Amgen's second-generation version of the drug. Epogen, its original form, generated $2.5 billion in revenue last year, most of it in federal Medicare reimbursements for its use in dialysis treatment. Amgen makes Procrit, which is identical to Epogen, and licenses Johnson & Johnson to sell it. Procrit sales last year totaled $3.1 billion.

Amgen's stock dropped 2.1 percent to $60.86 yesterday. Johnson & Johnson stock slipped 0.7 percent to $62.14.

In November, an article in New England Journal of Medicine described a clinical trial of Procrit called CHOIR that was cut short because of higher rates of death from heart attack and stroke in kidney patients receiving larger doses. The dosing regimen in the trial pushed red blood cell counts higher than is recommended by the FDA. The results echoed a study of Epogen in kidney dialysis patients that was suspended in 1996, also due to an unexpectedly high death rate during testing.

In October, a trial of Aranesp in Danish patients with head and neck cancers was halted early because of apparent increases in tumor growth. Amgen said it told the FDA about the trial immediately, but it did not alert investors, leading to an informal review disclosed last week by the Securities and Exchange Commission . News of the suspended study was not known until it was reported in February by The Cancer Letter , a trade publication in Washington.

In February, Amgen reported on another study of Aranesp in cancer patients not undergoing chemotherapy treatment, which resulted in a higher percentage of deaths. The causes of death have not been disclosed. The FDA has scheduled a May meeting of its Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee to discuss the new data.

After a week of news reports questioning Supreme Court candidate Annette Ziegler's judicial ethics, opponent Linda Clifford wasted no time in firing the opening salvo at a debate, charging that Ziegler's record in this regard was "lacking."

After Clifford, a Madison attorney, alleged several times during Friday's debate that Ziegler likely violated the state's code of judicial ethics by hearing, as a judge, cases involving West Bend Savings - where her husband is on the board of directors and the couple have more than $3.1 million in loans from the bank - Ziegler responded.

"My family doesn't have a financial stake in any case I've served," she said. "I don't think it's my job to get out of cases on which I serve." She said she welcomed any investigation of those charges.

Ziegler also tried to turn the tables, asking whether Clifford, if elected, would recuse herself from any cases involving negligence or malpractice because Clifford's husband is a personal injury lawyer.

Clifford called Ziegler's comments a "desperate attempt to confuse the laws of conflict of interest and recusal."

Clifford stayed on the offense during the hour-long debate Friday, which was sponsored by the State Bar of Wisconsin, WisPolitics.com and others. When Ziegler, a Washington County judge, said she held all the sitting Wisconsin Supreme Court justices with "high regard," Clifford cited a fundraising letter sent out on Ziegler's behalf in January that referred to the court as an "activist arm of liberal special-interest groups."

Ziegler fought back, charging that Clifford had longtime ties to the Democratic Party and hired a private investigator to "dig up dirt" on her.

But for the most part, Ziegler sought to portray herself as the logical choice for the seat by touting her 10 years of judicial experience as a circuit court judge in Washington County while pointing out, repeatedly, that Clifford has never been a judge.

Clifford, who has practiced law for 32 years, countered that practicing attorneys and non-judges have always had a presence on the Supreme Court.

"It's experience the court now lacks but needs," she said.

Ziegler and Clifford are vying to fill the seat being vacated by Justice Jon Wilcox, who is retiring. The election is April 3.

Court observers say the court is basically split now between liberals and conservatives, with Wilcox being among the conservatives.

When asked during the debate whether such designations had any place in the courtroom, both candidates said no.

"Using terms like conservative or liberal are not appropriate," Ziegler said. "I think judicial races should be non-partisan."

Ziegler said she lives a non-partisan life, but noted Clifford's Democratic affiliations.

Clifford, in turn, said Ziegler's campaign staff is comprised of "Republican operatives and Republican-identified individuals."

Clifford said she eschews political designations because they tend to affect a judge's ability to be independent and creates a public perception about how a judge will rule.

Clifford's closing remarks included another attack on Ziegler's ethics and a reiteration of her legal experience. Ziegler offered a more homey touch, harking back to her parents' hardware store and her desire as a young girl to work the cash register.

She said her parents made her earn that role by doing less glamorous work around the store first.

In a not-so-subtle reference to Clifford's lack of judicial experience, Ziegler said: "I think you do need to work your way up."