[ad_1]
Died at the age of 87, Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg made her mark on large cases with American legal history.
Ginsburg is the second Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. She held this position for 27 years until her death on September 18. In the course of her work, she is known for having written a series of landmark Supreme Court rulings.
In 1996, three years after joining the federal Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg wrote the majority of his opinion in the landmark case on gender discrimination. In this lawsuit, Virginia Public School Virginia Military Institute (VMI), known for its rigorous training as a novice boot camp, has a policy of admitting only boys. When it was not accepted by VMI, many students filed a lawsuit.
To reach a compromise, VMI announced that it would create another training program for women. This movement of the school is accepted by the court of first instance, but without the consent of the federal Supreme Court.
In a 1996 ruling, Judge Ginsburg identified the women’s training program as a “fuzzy shadow” of the VMI because it did not have the same curriculum, methodology, or opportunities as the boys’ school. According to Ginsburg, some girls like the learning content in VMI and can fully meet the health requirements that the school sets for boys.
Therefore, the VMI school violated the equal guarantee provision specified in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. “Women who want and qualify to attend VMI cannot get anything of lesser quality, given Virginia’s obligation to ensure equality for women,” Judge Ginsburg wrote.
Not only did Ginsburg’s ruling change VMI’s enrollment policy, it was also evaluated as a landmark lawsuit prohibiting discrimination based on gender stereotypes about abilities and preferences.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginburg (right) with President Bill Clinton at the 1993 United States Supreme Court appointment. Photo: AP
In 1999, nine years after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Judge Ginsburg wrote the verdict Olmstead vs. LC It is believed to strengthen the scope of this law to include the mentally handicapped.
In the lawsuit, two women with psychological disabilities sued the state of Georgia. The lawsuit alleges that the two plaintiffs are being kept separate in a closed-door facility, while experts say the two should be part of a community-based treatment program.
The state of Georgia does not discriminate against two women. Leaving them in a closed facility is due to budget constraints. However, Judge Ginsburg notes that the Medicaid plan agrees to pay for treatment in the community, which costs less than self-contained treatment.
According to Ginsburg, “To access essential health services, people with a psychological disability must renounce community life even though they can inherently enjoy it with reasonable accommodation. With a psychological disability, it is possible to access necessary medical services without the same sacrifice ”Therefore, forcing people with psychological disabilities to choose between accommodation and freedom would be discriminatory.
Judge Ginsburg’s vote also helped legalize same-sex marriage in every state in the US following the 2015 ruling. Obergefell vs. Hodges. This is a great time for same-sex couples and the rights of people in the LGBT (LGBTQ) community.
In this lawsuit, multiple same-sex couples sued because the state government prohibited same-sex marriage or did not recognize legal marriage. Finally, the federal Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs with 5 supreme justices voting yes, four justices voting no.
In the direct debate, Judge Ginsburg said that “we have changed the perception of marriage. Marriage today is no longer the same as under traditional or written law.”
Just two years ago, by verdict Timbs vs. Indiana In 2018, Judge Ginsburg helped broaden the scope of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a measure that could help defendants across the United States against government foreclosure. level.
In the incident, after Tyson Timbs pleaded guilty to selling $ 225 worth of heroin, the Indiana state government seized the car the defendant was driving while selling drugs. The car the defendant bought with his father’s life insurance money was $ 42,000, four times the maximum fine for Timbs’ crime.
The Court of First Instance rejected the forfeiture because it said the government had violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibited excessive fines. Upon reaching the Indiana State Supreme Court, the lower court ruling was overturned with an unfounded ruling that the Eighth Amendment applies within the state.
However, in a consensus of the nine federal supreme justices, Justice Ginsburg rejected the state Supreme Court ruling and concluded that the prohibition of excessive fines is equally applicable to those with the federal and state governments. “The prohibition of excessive fines has always been a shield throughout the Anglo-Saxon history of the United States for a reason: excessive penalties undermine other constitutional freedoms,” the judge wrote.
Aside from the affirmative majority vote, Justice Ginsburg is best known for his votes against the “fiery” when he is in the minority.
For example, Ginsburg is one of the four minority judges in the trial. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., in 2007 and at the same time, the rare act of reading an objection while sitting on the bench.
In this incident, Lilly Ledbetter sued the former company on charges of pay discrimination. According to Ledbetter, she works as an area manager, but is paid significantly less than the lowest paid of her male colleagues.
Most federal supreme court judges reject Ledbetter’s request. They don’t focus on the key issue of the income gap, they just think that the timing of the lawsuit was too far from the original ruling.
On the contrary, Judge Ginsburg pointed to the secrecy of wages and commented that “most do not understand or ignore the insidious ways in which women can become victims of income discrimination.” “It is the responsibility of Congress now to rectify the court’s stingy interpretation of the law,” she wrote.
Two years later, Congress followed the Ginsburg trial and passed the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Income Act. This law stipulates that each discriminatory paycheck will reset the 180-day period for filing a claim. Ginsburg then framed and kept a copy of the act on his office wall.
Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg (right) received the Freedom and Justice for All award in January. LBJ Foundation Photo / Jay Godwin.
In another “battle,” the results of the 2000 presidential election between candidates George Bush and Al Gore went to court after Florida had trouble counting votes. With a 5-4 negative to yes vote ratio, the federal Supreme Court eliminated the recount order that the Florida Supreme Court had previously issued.
In protest, Judge Ginsburg slammed the majority for being too “enthusiastic” to explain Florida law. “The extraordinary context of this case overshadowed the usual agreed principle that” the federal court grants the authority to explain the laws of the state to the supreme court of that state. “If other members of this court take notice for the system of government The two-tier United States, as usual, will uphold the Florida Supreme Court ruling, “he wrote.
In particular, other judges who voted against such as John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer ended their opinions with “I respectfully object.” In particular, Judge Ginsburg only wrote “I object.”
Quoc Dat (According to the CNBC, Law360, Fortuna)
