General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRuth Bader Ginsburg Weighs In On Ferguson, Skewers The Conservative Roberts Court
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Skewers High Court For Forsaking Fight Against 'Real Racial Problem'
By Shadee Ashtari
Although the U.S. Supreme Court was "once a leader in the world" in the battle for racial equality, recent decisions by the high court undermine its role in solving a "real racial problem" in America, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained in an interview with The National Law Journal on Wednesday.
Citing recent events in Ferguson, Missouri, and racially biased stop-and-frisk policies, Ginsburg reflected on the perpetuation of racial segregation in America, comparing the challenges with those of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.
<...>
instead of upholding the court's history as a powerful stalwart against racial discrimination, the Roberts court's recent decisions upholding affirmative action bans and restricting voting rights have not "helped" the country advance, Ginsburg explained.
"What's amazing is how things have changed," Ginsburg said, recalling a landmark 1971 decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., in which the Supreme Court unanimously embraced its legal powers to outlaw arbitrary employment discrimination against minorities. "It was a very influential decision and it was picked up in England. That's where the court was heading in the '70s."
Singling out the Voting Rights Act as the most powerful law "in terms of making people count in a democracy," Ginsburg reiterated her opposition to the court's majority 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down a key provision of the law that safeguarded against racial discrimination in certain voting laws.
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who delivered the majority decision, justified the ruling by arguing that "things have changed dramatically" in the South since the landmark civil rights law was signed in 1965 and that the provision, while once effective, is no longer needed.
Read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/ruth-bader-ginsburg-racial-discrimination_n_5699275.html
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)She is needed.
Sam1
(498 posts)TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)moondust
(19,993 posts)malaise
(269,054 posts)Rec
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)She speaks her mind. I still remember the Hobby Lobby case where she tore into the Supreme Court fascists.
JaydenD
(294 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)It must be hard for her to stomach, having to work with the majority CONservative court.
secondwind
(16,903 posts)ybbor
(1,554 posts)And when she decides to retire she must be replaced with a person as strong as she is on our side. We must control the senate and WH when she does step down, but I hope she serves as long as she can.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... throwing out that part of the voting rights act was
".... like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you're not getting wet."
That's right, she's naming names and using analogies to make her views completely understood.
sheshe2
(83,791 posts)Ruth Bader Ginsburg, thank you.
Uncle Joe
(58,366 posts)Thanks for the thread, Cali_Democrat.
Cha
(297,318 posts)have his head up his own conservative a$$.. so how would he know what's going on the real world?
Thank you, Ruth Bader Ginsburg!
Mahalo Cali
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)The racist Robert's court struck down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act.
They suggested America was post racial! Can you say out of touch?
Bigoted Fascists!
lastlib
(23,248 posts)Long life (and tenure) and health to you, Madame Justice!
Stellar
(5,644 posts)gotta love her!
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)of light in a sea of judicial darkness. Please don't retire Madame Ginsburg.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)pansypoo53219
(20,981 posts)gore NEVER had a chance. it had NOTHING to do w/ law.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Ginsburg appears to be justifying her positions on grounds of the social consequences.
I don't think that that is what a judge should be doing. Thinking about the consequences of laws should be left to elected politicians; a judge should focus on correctly interpreting the law, even if the correct interpretation will have consequences that are bad.
Even though I agree with most of her views, I do not want Ginsburg substituting her own conscience for the collective conscience of the electorate.
When a judge talks about "helping the country advance", that sets off very loud warning bells for me. A judge should be completely impartial about the consequences of their rulings and the direction the country should be going in; all they should care about is the correct interpretation of the law.
Yes, she's "on our side". No, I don't think that makes this OK.