- ‹ previous
- 5272 of 8827
- next ›
Ginsburg's Famous White Gloves Finally Come Off
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg led the dissent to the Court's 5-4 decision Tuesday on Ledbetter vs. the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. The case, which decided that pay discrimination cases could not be brought against employers more than 180 days after any alleged discrimination, also marked the second time in six weeks that Ginsburg read her dissent from the bench: an unusually high rate of occurrence for the historically reticent justice who is described as friends as an etiquette-minded, "white-glove person." In fact, Ginsburg had never read her dissent to the Court's decision aloud twice in one year. Ginsburg went years without employing the tactic previous to this term.
Some, like the co-president of the National Women's Law Center, Marcia Greenberger, are interpreting these vocal dissents as attempts to garner attention for some serious issues. Greenberger characterized Ginsburg's recent vocal dissents as a "clarion call to the American people that the court is headed in the wrong direction."
Indeed, partisan politics seems to have captured the Court, and Ginsburg can not have helped but notice. Ginsburg, now the only female Justice since Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement, has gone up against the same five justices (Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas) in both recent dissents. Those five frequently form the core of her opposition, and perhaps not surprisingly, three of these five justices were hand-picked by Bush presidents (Alito, Roberts, and Thomas). The other two were picked by Reagan. Ginsburg was joined in her dissent Tuesday by Justice Breyer, the only other justice on the bench appointed by a Democratic President (Clinton, like Ginsburg); by Justice Stouter, appointed by Bush in 1990 and a man who has drawn the ire of conservatives who consider him either an apostate or a phony; and by Justice Stevens, appointed way back in 1975 by Gerald Ford. Unable to persuade a majority of her colleagues on Ledbetter, Ginsburg called on Congress to overturn the Court's decision.
A month ago, Ginsburg criticized the gang of five for the language and logic in their decision to uphold the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. She argued that their opinion reflected "ancient notions about women's place in the family and under the Constitution -- ideas that have long since been discredited."
In her dissent Tuesday, Ginsburg again accused the majority for being out of touch, this time for not taking into consideration common workplace practices and characteristics of pay discrimination. It can be difficult, she argued, for pay discrimination to be proved in the short 180-day period that the Court requires if pay disparity occurs in small increments over time or if comparative pay information is not available to the employee.
Though Ginsburg spoke up for women in the partial birth abortion case, and spoke up again Tuesday for a female plaintiff, her concerns are broader than her sex. She knows that the decision in Ledbetter could hinder anyone who has reason to bring a discrimination suit based on race, national origin, or sexual orientation. We can only hope that in an increasingly conservative court, we have an increasingly vocal dissenter in Justice Ginsburg.
-- Jessica Savage





























Thank you, Ms. Savage, for your insightful and fair coverage of this very important issue - I would not have known before how relevant this emerging issue is to the american people, and you can bet your bottom dollar I'll be watching this bench closely in the coming months.
A question for the author: Where do we draw the line to indicate that a lawsuit can no longer be brought against a firm? Pay discrimination is a difficult thing to prove in the first place. While 180 days (six months) may be too short a time frame, should companies be indefinitely at the mercy of any employee who feels they haven't been compensated fairly? Excellent work, your readers demand more!
intresting and timely reporting; impt and a significant issue affecting women. Apparently 5 of the "Supremes" do not want to protect equal pay and have little understanding of the realities of the workplace.
The Civil Rights Act limits backpay to two years so companies are not exposed forever. Prior to this decision, what the law did do was expose them to liability if they continued to profit today from observable, proven disparaties at the expense of minorities. Corporations know - or with reasonable diligence - can know if they are paying women less than men, blacks less than whites, etc. And they can rectify it. Willful blindness to those disparities is discouraged as a result of this court opinion though.
Excellent work Ms. Savage. A timely article on a critical subject which I totally agree with!!! I look forward to seeing more articles from you.
Ms. Savage,
I enjoyed the article. As a woman this is a particular topic that plays on my soul.
Excellent work.
Ms. D. Thomas
Bush is going to nominate another Supreme Court Justice this month, end of term, because Souter wants to retire and leave D.C. Things will get interesting.
This is an important contribution by Ms. Savage. She notes that it is the reserved Justice Ginsburg that is now called upon to stand up for civil liberties to the "gang of five" and is doing so with her usual intellect, eloquence and grace, but also with a strong voice that many did not realize that she possessed. However, Ms. Savage also reminds us of the crucial social and civil rights issues coming before this Court and the critical balance in numbers of Justices with opposing personal views, which could tip the balance for our future either way. My opinion: we have been talking about this situation for years, but we are now down to the bitter reality--unless we elect a new President before too many cases come through the Court or before President Bush appoints another Justice, it may be too late to prevent damage that most U.S. citizens had not envisioned, even those who voted for George W. Bush.
While we all get caught up in the Hillary and Obama crap, and while the campaign trail becomes a four year distraction between elections, all kinds of other, more important issues are getting overlooked by the media and by all of us. Thanks for the report. MoJo should put a muzzle on campaign reporting, making it something that can only take up about thirty percent of this blog, in order for the dirty deals, partisanship and various other misdeeds of justice for all that still happensto be reported. Plus forcing the campaign through a narrower window would probably force more objective and powerful choices for what actually gets called news. Now, having said that, don't ask me how MoJo should regulate or accomplish this idea.
Excellent work Ms. Savage. A timely article on a critical subject which I totally agree with!!! I look forward to seeing more articles from you.
+1 good comment
nice
your website very quality
web tasarım
Parça Kontör | Ucuz Hosting | Web Tasarım | Haber Sistemi | Yemekler
Web Tasarım | Bilgisayar
sohbet chat
thakns admin
Kameralı Sohbet Sohbet Chat
Film İzle
Perfect..
good.
Greek
PArça kontör :) www.kontoroyna.com