Jump to content

User:Knope7/sandbox/Ruth Bader Ginsburg/jurisprudence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The retirement of Justice O'Connor left Ginsburg as the only woman on the Court. The New York Times referred to the 2006-2007 term of the Court as "as the time when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg found her voice, and used it."[1] The term also marked the first time in Ginsburg's history with the Court where she read multiple dissents from the bench, a tactic employed to signal more intense disagreement with the majority.[1]

[2]

Search and Seizure (added 3/30/17)

[edit]

Justice Ginsburg has written notable search and seizure opinions for the Court.

Although Ginsburg did not author the majority opinion, she was credited with influencing her colleagues on the case Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009).[3] The Court ruled that a school went too far in ordering a 13 year old, female student to strip to her bra and underpants so that female officials could search for drugs.[3] In an interview published prior to the Court's decision, Ginsburg shared her view that some of her colleagues did not fully appreciate the effect of a strip search on a 13 year old girl. As she pointed out, "They have never been a 13-year-old girl."[4] In an 8-1 decision, the Court agreed that the school's search went to far and violated the fourth amendment and allowed the student's lawsuit against the school to go forward. Only Ginsburg and Justice Stevens would have allowed the student to sue individual school officials as well.[3]

In Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009), Ginsburg dissented to the Court's decision to not suppress evidence due to a police officer's failure to update a computer system. In contrast to Justice Robert's emphasis on suppression as a means to deter police misconduct, Ginsburg took a more robust view on the use of suppression as a remedy for a violation of a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. Ginsburg viewed suppression as a way to prevent the government from profiting from mistakes, and therefore as a remedy to preserve judicial integrity and respect civil rights.[5]: 308  She also rejected Robert's assertion that suppression would not deter mistakes, contending making police pay a high price for mistakes would encourage them to take greater care.[5]: 309 

In Rodriguez v. United States, the majority held that police could not prolong a traffic stop beyond the time need to complete it's mission to employ a drug sniffing dog. http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/04/opinion-analysis-traffic-stops-cant-last-too-long-or-go-too-far-and-no-extra-dog-sniffs/

Abortion (added to article 4/1/2017)

[edit]

She discussed her views on abortion rights and sexual equality in a 2009 New York Times interview, in which she said regarding abortion that "[t]he basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman."[6] Although Ginsburg has consistently supported abortion rights and joined in the Court's opinion striking down Nebraska's partial-birth abortion law in Stenberg v. Carhart 530 U.S. 914 (2000), on the fortieth anniversary of the Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973), she criticized the decision as terminating a nascent democratic movement to liberalize abortion laws which might have built a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights.[7]

Ginsburg was in the minority for Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), a 5-4 decision upholding restrictions on partial birth abortion. In her dissent, Ginsburg opposed the majority's decision to defer to legislative findings that the procedure was not safe for women. Ginsburg focused her ire on the way Congress reached its findings and with the veracity of the findings.[8] to Joining the majority for Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), a case which struck down parts of a 2013 Texas law regulating abortion providers, Ginsburg also authored a short concurring opinion which was even more critical of the legislation at issue.[9] Writing for herself alone, Ginsburg asserted the legislation was not aimed at protecting women's health, as Texas had claimed, rather Ginsburg asserted the law was meant to impede women's access to abortions.[8][9]

Death Penalty

[edit]

Ginsburg joined Justice Breyer's dissent in Glossip v. Gross asserting the death penalty should be abolished.[10]

Civil Procedure

[edit]

Equal Protection

[edit]

Gender Discrimination

[edit]

Ginsburg authored the Court's opinion in United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996), which struck down the Virginia Military Institute's (VMI) male only admissions policy as violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. VMI was a prestigious state run military inspired institution which did not admit women. For Ginsburg, a state actor such as VMI could not use gender to deny women the opportunity to attend VMI with its unique educational methods.[11] Ginsburg emphasized that the government must show an "exceedingly persuasive justification" to use a classification based on sex.[12]

Ginsburg found herself in dissent on Ledbetter v. Goodyear, a case where plaintiff Lilly Ledbetter filed a lawsuit against her employer claiming pay discrimination based on her gender under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a 5-4 decision, the majority interpreted the statute of limitations as starting to run at the time of every pay period, even if a woman did not know she was being paid less than her male colleague until later. Ginsburg found the result absurd, pointing out that women often do not know they are being paid less, and therefore it was unfair to expect them to act at the time of each paycheck. She also called attention to the reluctance of women in male dominated fields may have to making waves by filing lawsuits over small amounts, choosing instead to wait untilt he disparity accumulates.[13] As part of her dissent, Ginsburg called upon Congress to amend Title VII to effectively undo the Court's decision.[14] Following the election of President Barack Obama in 2008, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, making it easier for employees to win pay discrimination claims, became law.[15][16] Ginsburg was given credit for helping to inspire the law.[14][17]

International law (already added to main article)

[edit]

Ginsburg supports using foreign interpretations of law for the persuasive value and possible wisdom, not as something which the court is bound to follow.[18] Ginsburg has expressed the view that looking to international law is well ingrained in tradition in American law, counting John Henry Wigmore and President John Adams as internationalists.[19] Ginsburg's own reliance on international law dates back to her time as an attorney as during her first argument before the court, 1971's Reed v. Reed, she cited to two German cases.[20] In her concurring opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, a decision upholding Michigan Law School's affirmative action admissions policy, Ginsburg noted there was accord between the notion that affirmative action admissions policies would have an end point and international treaties designed to combat racial and gender based discrimination.[21]

Potential Sources: VMI http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/library/vmi/court.htm , series of opinions https://www.law.columbia.edu/law_school/communications/reports/winter2004/opinions

Gradualism in Crim Pro http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1578490 ; Strip search violates child's rights http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/us/politics/26scotus.html?_r=1 ; Traffic stop http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-traffic-stops-20150421-story.html ; http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/04/opinion-analysis-traffic-stops-cant-last-too-long-or-go-too-far-and-no-extra-dog-sniffs/

Sunstein calls Ginsburg and Breyer minimalists who build upon precedent rather than pushing Constitution towards vision Cass R. Sunstein, A Constitution of Many Minds: Why the Founding Document Doesn't Mean What It Meant Before (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009), 10, http://www.questia.com/read/117584743/a-constitution-of-many-minds-why-the-founding-document

  1. ^ a b Greenhouse, Linda (May 31, 2007). "In dissent, Ginsburg finds her voice at Supreme Court". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 1, 2017.
  2. ^ Harris, Paul (August 8, 2009). "Sonia Sotomayor sworn in as first Hispanic supreme court judge". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved April 2, 2017.
  3. ^ a b c Liptak, Adam (June 26, 2009). "Supreme Court Says Child's Rights Violated by Strip Search". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved December 8, 2016.
  4. ^ Biskupic, Joan (October 5, 2009). "Ginsburg: Court needs another woman". usatoday30.usatoday.com. Retrieved December 8, 2009.
  5. ^ a b Tribe, Laurence; Matz, Joshua (2014-06-03). Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court and the Constitution. Macmillan. ISBN 9780805099096.
  6. ^ Bazelon, Emily (July 7, 2009). "The Place of Women on the Court". The New York Times. Retrieved September 1, 2010.
  7. ^ Pusey, Allen. "Ginsburg: Court should have avoided broad-based decision in Roe v. Wade," ABA Journal, 13 May 2013 Archived March 6, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved July 5, 2013.
  8. ^ a b Hirshman, Linda (June 27, 2016). "How Ruth Bader Ginsburg just won the next abortion fight". Washington Post. Retrieved March 31, 2017.
  9. ^ a b Green, Emma (June 27, 2016). "Why Ruth Bader Ginsburg Came Out Hard Against TRAP Laws When No Other Justice Would". The Atlantic. Retrieved March 31, 2017.
  10. ^ Lithwick, Dahlia (29 June 2015). "Scalia goes off script". Slate. Retrieved 31 March 2016.
  11. ^ Jones Merritt, Deborah; Lieberman, David M. (1 January 2014). "Ruth Bader Ginsburg 's Jurisprudence of Opportunity and Equality". Colum. L. Rev. 104. Retrieved 3 April 2016.
  12. ^ Biskupic, Joan (27 June 1996). "Supreme Court Invalidates Exclusion of Women by VMI". The Washington Post. Retrieved 12 July 2016.
  13. ^ Barnes, Robert (May 30, 2007). "Over Ginsburg's Dissent, Court Limits Bias Suits". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved April 1, 2017.
  14. ^ a b Toobin, Jeffrey (June 24, 2013). "Will Ginsburg's Ledbetter Play Work Twice?". The New Yorker. Retrieved April 1, 2017.
  15. ^ de Vogue, Ariane; Simon, Jeff (February 12, 2015). "Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Down with 'Notorious R.B.G.'". CNN. Retrieved April 1, 2017.
  16. ^ Wolf, Richard (July 31, 2013). "Ginsburg's dedication undimmed after 20 years on court". USA TODAY. Retrieved April 1, 2017.
  17. ^ Cite error: The named reference Wolf, Richard, Ginsburg's dedication undimme was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  18. ^ Cite error: The named reference Liptak, Adam; Ginsburg shares views on Influence of Foreign Law was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  19. ^ Cite error: The named reference Anker, Deborah E.2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  20. ^ Judith, Resnik (2013). "OPENING THE DOOR: RUTH BADER GINSBURG, LAW'S BOUNDARIES, AND THE GENDER OF OPPORTUNITIES". Faculty Scholarship Series: 83.
  21. ^ Anker, Deborah E. (2013). "GRUTTER v. BOLLINGER: JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG'S LEGITIMIZATION OF THE ROLE OF COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW IN U.S. JURISPRUDENCE" (PDF). Harvard Law Review. 127: 425. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Knope7/sandbox/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg/jurisprudence&oldid=1092485352"