1972 until 1980, she taught at Columbia, where she became the
woman and co-authored the first law school casebook
In 1972, Ginsburg co-founded the Women's Rights Project at the
Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) and, in 1973, she became the ACLU's General Counsel.
As the chief litigator for the Women's Rights Project, she briefed
and argued several landmark cases in front of the Supreme Court.
Having previously argued Reed v. Reed, she took on cases like
411 U.S. 677 (1973) and Weinberger
420 U.S. 636 (1975), which supported the ultimate development and
application of the intermediate
Equal Protection standard of review for legal classifications
based on sex.
She attained a reputation as a skilled oral advocate and her work
directly led to the end of gender discrimination in many areas of
In 1977, she became a fellow at the Center
for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences
last case as a lawyer before the Court was 1978's Duren
which challenged the validity of voluntary jury
for women. In Ginsburg's view, women's participation in a
government service as vital as jury duty should not be optional.
At the end of Ginsburg's oral presentation, then-Associate Justice
asked Ginsburg, "You won't settle for putting Susan
on the new dollar, then?"
Ginsburg said she considered responding "We won't settle for
tokens," but instead opted not to answer the question.
the same link above as the first quote:
are NO SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED TO BE
U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, OR TO SERVE ON THE COURT.
this pathetic and inexperienced life of Kiki with the what the idea
for a Supreme Court Justice was, when the founder's thought about
it, while they were 'creating the Court”.
their rumblings I seem to remember that the founders were thinking
that the court would be reserved for unusially successful
individuals. It was thought that a slot on the court was to be
offered to those exceptionally well qualified people who had been
successful in business and were knowledgable about life and
everything that went with that. “Being on the Supreme Court”
was not something that was thought about like an ordinary “job”
which is apparently why Ginsburg was even considered for the job.
no mention of having to even have a law degree, was a part of the
'qualifictions' and that's still true today.
in Ginsburg's case “she
transferred to Columbia
and became the first woman to be on two major law
and the Columbia
In 1959 she earned her Bachelor
at Columbia and tied for first in her class”
- which while exemplury as part of a formal education, there is no
mention of life-expierence. In fact it appears that the woman
never worked a day in her life.
from being experienced or knowledgable about business, life, the
arts or much of anything else, she appears to have carved out a
very narrow space where she could flourish as “a woman' in a
time where there were indeed very few 'recognized women' anywhere
in this society. That could have worked for her, but alass that
turned out not to be the case either.
other aspect of “being on the court” that KiKi failed to
understand was even the appearance of a conflict of interest in
the cases she might well be involved in such as her comments
yesterday about Donald Trump, that reflects her absolute &
total opposition to anything and everything “trump-like” -
and this goes beyond TRUMP. It allows her to cherry-pick the cases
and decisions made, based on prejudice.
be fair: Ginsburg was one of the four justices that dissented in
the Supreme Court Decision in the Bush vs. Gore decision”
Court ruled 54 that no constitutionally valid recount could be
completed by a December 12 "safe harbor" deadline. The
Court asserted that "the Supreme Court of Florida has said
that the legislature intended the State's electors to
'participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process,' as
provided in 3
The Court therefore effectively ended the proposed recount,
because "the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the
safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. §5."
justices (Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer) dissented
as to stopping the recount. Two of those four dissenters (Justices
Souter) acknowledged that the counting up until December 9 had not
conformed with Equal Protection requirements. However, Souter and
Breyer favored remanding the case back to the Florida Supreme
Court for the purpose of crafting specific guidelines for how to
count disputed ballots, in contrast to the majority's decision to
halt the recount altogether.
The actual counting had ended with the December 9 injunction
issued by the same five-justice majority, three days before any
dissenting opinions strongly criticized the five justice
majority for involving the Court in state-level affairs.”
this is where federal law was broken in that U.S.
Presidential Election laws were broken, because this happened
and the Congress was by-passed, the courts both federal &
State were guilty of illegal interferance in a US presidential
Stevens' dissent (joined by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg)
concluded as follows:
must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the
Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence
in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would
make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed.
Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The
endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can
only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of
judges throughout the land.
is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial
system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will
one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be
inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain.
Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity
of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the
identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's
confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of
What is clear is that the entire track record of the
Supreme Court from the time they decided to give corporations
the right to live-forever, and then they moved on to grant
corporations' the same rights as human beings, with none of the
responsibilities: That Crime Against Humanity then emboldened
the private corporations to become nation states as they are
now claiming under TPP ad nauseum.
that backdrop, the various rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court
have proven their inability to protect America or American
citizens from the crimes of the one-percenters worldwide. And
in that continuing failure Ruth Badar Ginsberg has hardly
distinguished herself as an outstanding jurist at least not
in the minds of the many...