Michael H. Turk, chair of the Cambridge TenantsUnion, says his group opposes Fried's confirmationbecause of his opposition to rent control.

"[We will] make the case broadly across thestate as to why Charles Fried is a disaster as anappointment," Turk says.

Turk's criticism stems from Fried's notorioussupport for anti-rent control forced during lastyear's clash over Question 9, the statewidereferendum which abolished rent control inMassachusetts.

Turk campaigned to uphold rent control inCambridge, citing issues of tenants rights. But hesays that Fried opposed him, saying that rentcontrol had been abused and had caused adeterioration in housing and property values.

Turk says Fried is incapable in impartiality.

"The way in which Charles Fried actively playeda role in a recent political campaign to prohibitrent control raises questions about his ability toplay an impartial role," Turk says.

And he warns that Fried does not supportcommunity government.

"Fried made the case of `statism' [in the rentcontrol debate]," Turk says. "He argued that localcommunities have very limited powers and that itis the state which grants and withdraws powers atits whim. I think he has severely warped what wasthe home rule relationship between localcommunities and their states."

Turk also charges that Frieds' temperoverpowers his reason and logic when his opponentsdisagree with him.

"He engaged in heavy handed political rhetoricin the campaign," Turk says. "He takes a strong,perhaps even sort of violent exception to thosewith whom he disagrees."

According to Turk, Fried "described Cambridge[with rent control] as an infection which neededto be controlled."

"I don't think these are the words of a futurejudge," Turk says.

Turk also alleges that as a Cambridge landlordhimself, Fried broke city rent control laws whilehe was Solicitor General.

"Fried had something of a personal motive inthe rent control campaign and he was notparticularly forthright about it," Turk says.

"In 1987 he broke the city's rent control laws,overcharging his tenants. He had a responsibility[during the debate over Question 9] to say thatthis was a law that he ran afoul of. Instead, heattempted to sort of squirm his way out," Turksays.