Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Supreme Court

As some of you may recall, one of the classes I took when I was is D.C. was “Controversy and the Supreme Court.” That class started my interest in the Court (SCOTUS). Since then, I’ve written a term paper about SCOTUS decisions relating to women’s rights. I’ve also read quite a few decisions for fun. Additionally, I think Court decisions are something everybody should at least be aware of. They set legal precedence and impact how laws are interpreted. A future blog might delve a bit into the history of the Court. This blog, however, is going to be about Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG), my favorite Justice.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was born in 1933 in New York and graduated from Columbia Law School. She worked for the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. She was the first female member of the Harvard Law Review. President Carter appointed her to the Court of Appeals in 1980. In 1993, she was appointed to the Supreme Court. She was the second woman appointed to the Court. (Sandra Day O’Connor was the first, but she is a different story.)

RBG has always been a staunch advocate of gender equality. Many of the cases she argued before SCOTUS were gender-based, including a case that “involved a portion of the Social Security Act that favored women over men because it granted certain benefits to widows but not widowers.” She won the case. (In case you’re interested, the case is Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld.)

Part of the reason I like RBG is the way she writes. In the past 21 years, she’s written a ton of opinions, but I’m going to take a look at a few specific ones. First, her opinion for the Court in United States v. Virginia et al. (1996), decided 7-1 in favor of the United States. In this case, the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) and the state of Virginia were sued “alleging that VMI’s exclusively male admission policy violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.” In order for the Court to have decided in favor of VMI, they would have had to “demonstrate an ‘exceedingly persuasive justification’ for” denying women admittance, which it did not do. Ginsburg writes about VMI’s plans for education thusly, “However well this plan serves Virginia’s sons, it makes no provision whatever for her daughters.” She then addresses the Constitutional concerns: “The constitutional violation in this case is the categorical exclusion of women, in disregard of their individual merit, from an extraordinary educational opportunity afforded men.” There is no question of what is at issue in this case.

In Ginsburg’s Bush v. Gore dissent, she writes, “I might join The Chief Justice were it my commission to interpret Florida law.” She does not see this as the case in this instance. Inevitably, SCOTUS deals with state laws and possible conflicts state laws have with federal laws. However, “Rarely has this Court rejected outright an interpretation of state law by a state high court.” The three cases listed as examples “are embedded in historical contexts hardly comparable to the situation here.” Ginsburg’s dissent is straightforward. She concludes with, “In sum, the Court’s conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court’s own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States. I dissent.” The final two sentences of her dissent are a harsh condemnation of the Court’s decision. And she omits the “respectfully” from her official dissension sentence.

In 2007, Ginsburg issued a dissent in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. This was a case about gender pay discrimination, ruled 5-4 in favor of Goodyear. The ruling was based on a time limit on filing discrimination claims and a lack of evidence. Ginsburg equates pay disparities and hostile work environments because of their repeated, long-term nature. As for the lack of evidence cited by the majority, Ginsburg writes,

“To show how far the Court has strayed from the interpretation of the Title VII with fidelity to the Act’s core purpose, I return to the evidence Ledbetter presented at trial. Ledbetter proved to the jury the following: She was a member of a protected class; she performed work substantially equal to work of the dominant class (men); she was compensated less for that work; and the disparity was attributable to gender-based discrimination… Specifically, Ledbetter’s evidence demonstrated that her current pay was discriminatorily low due to a long series of decisions reflecting Goodyear’s pervasive discrimination against women managers in general and Ledbetter in particular.”

This is my favorite part of her dissent in this case, although there are a few other sentences that are particularly good as well.

In 2013, Ginsburg issued the dissent in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder. This case dealt with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, specifically Section 5. Section 5 deals with preclearance—a requirement that sought to prevent districts, and states, with a history of discriminating against minorities in the creation of voting districts from redistricting in a way that furthers discrimination. Although the main offenders of racial gerrymandering were in the South, other counties and states were subject to preclearance. Outside the South, the whole state of Alaska and counties in California, New York, and South Dakota, and townships in Michigan, were on the list. The two counties in South Dakota are both Native American reservations. Ginsburg’s dissent starts by acknowledging the continued existence of voter discrimination and the steps Congress had taken to overcome that discrimination (mainly the repeated reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act) and then provides many examples of the necessity of preclearance. As in many of her dissents, Ginsburg’s conclusion is the strongest condemnation of the majority opinion. Here she says, “In my judgment, the Court errs egregiously by overriding Congress’ decision.”

RBG has written dissents in some other really important recent cases, al of which are good reads. Most recently, she issued a dissent in the Texas Voter ID Law challenge, to which no majority opinion was offered, at 5am.

Finally, there is a really good interview with RBG, available here.

I know this was a bit long, but I hope I’ve shared some of my love for the Supreme Court, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. SCOTUS decisions are incredibly important. In conclusion, RBG is awesome.

Sources:

http://www.biography.com/people/ruth-bader-ginsburg-9312041#synopsis

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/25/justice-ginsburgs-record-breaking-day

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-1941.ZS.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD2.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1074.ZD.html

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_5/covered.php

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-96#writing-12-96_DISSENT_5

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/18/ruth-bader-ginsburg-voter-id-dissent_n_6007612.html