Ruth Bader Ginsburg

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Image of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Nonpartisan

Prior offices
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Supreme Court of the United States

Education

Bachelor's

Cornell University, 1954

Law

Columbia Law School, 1959


Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Bader Ginsburg was nominated to the Court by President Bill Clinton (D) in June of 1993 to succeed Justice Byron White. She assumed office in August 1993 and served on the court until her death on September 18, 2020.[1] For more information on the 2020 U.S. Supreme Court vacancy, click here. She was the second woman to sit on the court and the second of four women to sit on the Court at the time of her death.

Ginsburg began her legal career in academia. She taught at Rutgers University Law School and Columbia Law School, in addition to directing the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union.[2]

In 1980, she was nominated by President Jimmy Carter (D) and confirmed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She served on that court from 1980 to 1993.

Ginsburg’s notable opinions included her majority opinion in United States v. Virginia, where women were given the right to attend the all-male Virginia Military Institute; her dissent in the employment discrimination case, Ledbetter v. Goodyear; and her dissent in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby on religious objections to mandates.

Historical SCOTUS Graphic small.png

Professional career

  • 1973-1980: General counsel
  • 1971-1973: Director and co-founder, Women's Rights Project
  • 1973-1974: Consultant, United States Commission on Civil Rights
  • 1972-1980: Professor, Columbia University School of Law
  • 1963-1972: Rutgers School of Law
  • 1969-1972: Professor
  • 1966-1969: Associate professor
  • 1963-1966: Assistant professor
  • 1962-1963: Associate director, Project on International Procedure, Columbia Law School
  • 1961-1962: Research associate, Project on International Procedure, Columbia Law School
  • 1959-1961: Law clerk, Edmund Palmieri, Southern District of New York

While Ginsburg was working on the Project on International Procedure at Columbia Law, she learned Swedish to coauthor a book on judicial procedure in Sweden. During her time at Rutgers, she co-founded the Women's Rights Law Reporter. While at Columbia, she authored the first law school case book on sex discrimination. During her time at the ACLU, Ginsberg appeared before the Supreme Court six times, earning a reputation as a skilled oral advocate.[2]

Early life and education

Ginsburg received her bachelor's degree from Cornell University. In 1954, she enrolled at Harvard Law School. When her husband took a job in New York City, she transferred to Columbia Law School. She served on the Harvard and Columbia law reviews. She earned her LL.B. degree at Columbia in 1959.[2]

Approach to the law

Ginsburg believed in a living Constitution, a form of jurisprudence that believes the United States Constitution is a document that adapts to the times, taking on different meanings depending on when it is interpreted. This is opposed to originalism or textualism, both of which hold generally that constitutional interpretation must give greater weight to the text of the Constitution and what the common meaning of the language was at the time of its adoption.[3] Oyez, a law project created by Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law, said that she was known for unifying the court's liberal bloc.[2]

Ginsburg had a well-documented friendship with the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Nina Tontenberg of NPR referred to the relationship as a "jousting, good-humored friendship" ahead of an interview she did with both at George Washington University in February 2015.[4]

Martin-Quinn score

Ginsburg's Martin-Quinn score following the 2019-2020 term was -2.82, making her the second-most liberal justice on the court at that time. Martin-Quinn scores were developed by political scientists Andrew Martin and Kevin Quinn from the University of Michigan, and measure the justices of the Supreme Court along an ideological continuum. The further from zero on the scale, the more conservative (>0) or liberal (<0) the justice. The chart below details every justice's Martin-Quinn score for the 2019-2020 term.

Video discussion

Ginsburg spoke at the University of Chicago in September 2019 discussing collegiality on the court, her relationship with Antonin Scalia, and how the law and social change intersect. The video of that event is embedded below.

Ginsburg spoke at the Colorado Law School in September 2012 discussing being a woman in law school and the legal profession, her approach to the law, and several of her noteworthy decisions on the court. The video of that event is embedded below.

Judicial nominations and appointments

Supreme Court of the United States (1993-2020)

Nomination Tracker
Fedbadgesmall.png
Nominee Information
Name: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Progress
Confirmed 42 days after nomination.
ApprovedANominated: June 22, 1993
ApprovedAABA Rating: Unanimously Well Qualified
Questionnaire:
ApprovedAHearing: July 20-23, 1993
QFRs: (Hover over QFRs to read more)
ApprovedAReported: July 29, 1993 
ApprovedAConfirmed: August 3, 1993
ApprovedAVote: 96-3


President Bill Clinton (D) nominated Ginsburg as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States on June 22, 1993. During her confirmation hearings in the Senate, Ginsburg did not answer questions regarding her personal views on most issues. She also did not answer how she would adjudicate certain hypothetical situations as a Supreme Court justice. She did answer questions relating to some issues, affirming her belief in a constitutional right to privacy, and explaining at some length her personal philosophy and thoughts regarding equality between men and women. The U.S. Senate confirmed Ginsburg by a 96-3 vote, and she took her seat on August 10, 1993. For the full transcript of Justice Ginsburg's confirmation hearing, visit: The Library of Congress, "Nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States".

Ginsburg was succeeded by Amy Coney Barrett, who was confirmed on October 26, 2020.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals (1980-1993)

Ginsburg was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by President Jimmy Carter on April 14, 1980, to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Harold Leventhal. She received her commission on June 18, 1980.[5] She left the court upon her elevation to the Supreme Court in 1993.

Supreme Court statistics

Opinions by year

Below is a table of the number of opinions, concurrences, and dissents that Ginsburg issued during her time on Supreme Court, from Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute and from the annual Stat Pack produced by the website SCOTUSBlog. This information was updated annually at the end of each term.[6][7]

Justice agreement

In the 2019 term, Ginsburg agreed in full, part, or judgment only the most often with Stephen Breyer. She disagreed most often with Clarence Thomas.[8] In the 2018 term, Ginsburg agreed in full, part, or judgment only the most often with Sonia Sotomayor. She disagreed most often with Clarence Thomas.[9] The table below highlights Ginsburg's agreement and disagreement rates with each justice on the court during that term.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreement rates, 2017 - Present
2017 term 2018 term 2019 term
Justice Agreement rate Disagreement rate Agreement rate Disagreement rate Agreement rate Disagreement rate
John Roberts 68% 32% 63% 37% 70% 30%
Anthony Kennedy 66% 34% N/A N/A N/A N/A
Clarence Thomas 55% 45% 50% 50% 49% 51%
Stephen Breyer 89% 11% 82% 18% 93% 7%
Samuel Alito 54% 46% 57% 43% 51% 49%
Sonia Sotomayor 96% 4% 93% 7% 89% 11%
Elena Kagan 90% 10% 88% 12% 87% 13%
Neil Gorsuch 58% 42% 63% 37% 62% 38%
Brett Kavanaugh N/A N/A 63% 37% 67% 33%

Frequency in majority

In the 2019 term, Ginsburg was in the majority in 75 percent of decisions. She was in the majority more often than three other justices and less often than five other justices.[10] In the 2018 term, Ginsburg was in the majority in 76 percent of decisions. She was in the majority more often than two other justices and less often than five other justices. She was in the majority with the same frequency as Sonia Sotomayor. Since the 2011 term, Ginsburg has been in the majority more than 80 percent of the time four times. Across those nine terms, she has been in the majority for 80 percent of all cases.[11]

Noteworthy cases

The noteworthy cases listed in this section include any case where the justice authored a 5-4 majority opinion or an 8-1 dissent. Other cases may be included in this section if they set or overturn an established legal precedent, are a major point of discussion in an election campaign, receive substantial media attention related to the justice's ruling, or based on our editorial judgment that the case is noteworthy. For more on how we decide which cases are noteworthy, click here.


Since she joined the court through the 2019 term, Ginsburg authored the majority opinion in a 5-4 decision 21 times and authored a dissent in an 8-1 decision nine times. The table below details these cases by year.[12]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg noteworthy cases
Year 5-4 majority opinion 8-1 dissenting opinion
Total 21 9
2019 0 1
2018 1 0
2017 1 0
2016 0 0
2015 0 1
2014 2 0
2013 0 0
2012 1 0
2011 0 3
2010 2 1
2009 1 0
2008 2 1
2007 0 1
2006 0 0
2005 1 0
2004 0 0
2003 2 0
2002 1 0
2001 1 0
2000 0 1
1999 0 0
1998 0 0
1997 0 0
1996 0 0
1995 1 0
1994 3 0
1993 2 0

Supreme court opinions

Racial gerrymandering (2018)

See also: Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill

Ginsburg authored a 5-4 majority opinion in this case ruling that the state House, helmed by Republicans, lacked standing to appeal a lower court order striking down the original legislative district plan as a racial gerrymander. Ginsburg was joined in the majority by Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch. Ginsburg wrote:

“ The House lacks standing to represent the State’s interests. The State itself had standing to press this appeal, see Diamond v. Charles, 476 U. S. 54, 62, and could have designated agents to do so, Hollingsworth, 570 U. S., at 710. However, the State did not designate the House to represent its interests here. Under Virginia law, authority and responsibility for representing the State’s interests in civil litigation rest exclusively with the State’s Attorney General. ... Throughout this litigation, the House has purported to represent only its own interests. The House thus lacks authority to displace Virginia’s Attorney General as the State’s representative. ... In short, the State of Virginia would rather stop than fight on. One House of its bicameral legislature cannot alone continue the litigation against the will of its partners in the legislative process.[13][14] ”

Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows employers to deny contraception coverage to employees (2014)
See also: United States Supreme Court (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U. S. ____ (2014))

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the dissenting opinion writer in the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. The case focused on the ability of a corporation, Hobby Lobby, to deny access to birth control options to their employees as mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on the grounds of religious beliefs. The court ruled 5-4 to allow Hobby Lobby to restrict forms of contraceptives that were mandated by the ACA. Ginsburg said,

“ In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.[15][14] ”

Ginsburg went on to discuss cases that demonstrated the purpose of incorporation was to separate one's personal life from the possible threats that come with owning a business. She wrote:

“ In a sole proprietorship, the business and its owners are one and the same. By incorporating a business, however, an individual separates herself from the entity and escapes personal responsibility for the entity's obligations. One might ask why the separation should hold only when it serves the interests of those who control the corporation.[15][14] ”

In conclusion, Justice Ginsburg addressed the majority's opinion in arguing that the court's ruling should be limited to the contraceptive mandate and that it laid no precedent for lower courts to follow. She raised the question of where the courts will draw the line when it came to the mandate when religious objections can be found in blood transfusions, antidepressants, and vaccinations.[15]

Female employee's Title VII workplace discrimination claims time-barred (2007)
See also: United States Supreme Court (Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 550 U.S. 618 (2007))

A Goodyear employee, Lilly Ledbetter, filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that her pay and position were lower than her male colleagues and that the discrepancy violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ledbetter presented evidence from nearly 20 years working for Goodyear and said that in the final year of her employment with Goodyear, she made approximately $15,000 less than the lowest-paid male employee holding the same managerial title. A jury ruled in Ledbetter's favor, and she was awarded $360,000 in back pay and damages. Goodyear filed a motion to vacate the judgment, arguing that Ledbetter was prevented under the Civil Rights Act from challenging pay decisions going back beyond 180 days. The district court denied Goodyear's motion, but the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding "that the jury could only examine Ledbetter's career for evidence of discrimination as far back as the last annual salary review before the start of the 180-day limitations period." As there was no evidence of discrimination in those reviews, Ledbetter's claim was dismissed.[16]

On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, a five-justice majority upheld the Eleventh Circuit's ruling. The court held that Ledbetter's claim was time-barred by Title VII's limitations period. In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the court's interpretation of Title VII was not correct. She wrote,

“ To show how far the Court has strayed from interpretation of Title VII with fidelity to the Act’s core purpose, I return to the evidence Ledbetter presented at trial. Ledbetter proved to the jury the following: She was a member of a protected class; she performed work substantially equal to work of the dominant class (men); she was compensated less for that work; and the disparity was attributable to gender-based discrimination. ... Yet, under the Court’s decision, the discrimination Ledbetter proved is not redressable under Title VII. Each and every pay decision she did not immediately challenge wiped the slate clean. Consideration may not be given to the cumulative effect of a series of decisions that, together, set her pay well below that of every male area manager. Knowingly carrying past pay discrimination forward must be treated as lawful conduct. Ledbetter may not be compensated for the lower pay she was in fact receiving when she complained to the EEOC. Nor, were she still employed by Goodyear, could she gain, on the proof she presented at trial, injunctive relief requiring, prospectively, her receipt of the same compensation men receive for substantially similar work. The Court’s approbation of these consequences is totally at odds with the robust protection against workplace discrimination Congress intended Title VII to secure. ... This is not the first time the Court has ordered a cramped interpretation of Title VII, incompatible with the statute’s broad remedial purpose. ... Once again, the ball is in Congress’ court. As in 1991, the Legislature may act to correct this Court’s parsimonious reading of Title VII."[17][14] ”

In response to the court's decision, Congress enacted the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which was the first piece of legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama (D).

VMI ban on female cadets ruled unconstitutional (1996)
See also: United States Supreme Court (United States v. Virginia et al., 518 U.S. 515 (1996))

Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion that allowed women to attend the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), an all-male military school. The state of Virginia argued that allowing women to attend VMI would lower the overall quality of the experience at the Institute and that they would have to abandon their education style. In response, Virginia created the Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership (VWIL) to offer a female-only option. The petitioners said that women applying to VMI wouldn't require special treatment and that women expected to be held to the same standards as male students. They also argued that the VWIL did not offer the same military training that VMI offered. Addressing those statements, Ginsburg wrote,:

“ Women's successful entry into the federal military academies, and their participation in the Nation's military forces, indicate that Virginia's fears for the future of VMI may not be solidly grounded. The State's justification for excluding all women from 'citizen soldier' training for which some are qualified, in any event, cannot rank as 'exceedingly persuasive,' as we have explained and applied that standard.[14] ”

Noteworthy events

2016 statements on Donald Trump

See also: Justice Ginsburg's comments on Donald Trump
  • In an Associated Press interview with Mark Sherman on July 8, 2016, Justice Ginsburg, when asked for her views on a potential Donald Trump (R) administration, stated, "I don't want to think about that possibility, but if it should be, then everything is up for grabs ... It's likely that the next president, whoever she will be, will have a few appointments to make."[18]
  • Two days later, The New York Times published an interview between reporter Adam Liptak and Justice Ginsburg in which she said the following regarding Trump: "I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president ... For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that."[19]
  • On July 11, 2016 Justice Ginsburg, in an interview with CNN legal analyst and Supreme Court biographer Joan Biskupic, said Trump was "a faker" and said, "He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. ... How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that."[20]
  • In a statement released on July 14, 2016, Justice Ginsburg apologized for her statements,[21]
“

On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them ... Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect. [14]

”


Ginsburg Precedent

Ginsburg's Senate confirmation hearings inspired debate more than a decade later about the appropriate amount of questions to ask supreme court nominees. President George W. Bush (R) was in office in 2005, when Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement months before the death of fellow justice William Rehnquist. Congress was controlled by Republicans at that time.

Democrats and Republicans, especially during the confirmation hearings for John Roberts in September, were unable to agree over the number of questions Bush's nominees should be subject to. Republicans, arguing for the lower end of the spectrum, referenced Ginsburg's hearings in which she declined to answer questions about abortion, gay rights, separation of church and state, rights of the disabled, and other questions about her personal views. Further, only one witness was allowed to testify against her during her four days of hearings. Republicans called this the Ginsburg Precedent or Ginsburg Rule. Ginsburg herself defended her responses and became known for the mantra, "No hints, no forecasts, no previews."[22][23]

Among others, Senator Chuck Schumer (D) publicly contested the idea of the Ginsburg Precedent. He said that "over 300 opinions over 13 years as a federal judge" allowed Ginsburg to share her opinions through her body of work. The Federalist Society issued a paper on the Ginsburg confirmations saying that the justice's general answers and avoidance of other questions were based on valid reasoning, and her 96-3 confirmation vote supported that the U.S. Senate understood these reasons.[22][24]

Personal

Ginsburg was a widow. She was married to Martin Ginsburg from 1954 until he died in 2010. They had two children, Jane and James.[25]

Ginsburg had lung cancer surgery on December 21, 2018. After the surgery, doctors indicated Ginsburg was cancer-free. The cancer was diagnosed after she fell and broke her ribs in November 2018.[26]

On July 17, 2020, Ginsburg announced that she had been undergoing chemotherapy treatment since May 2020 for a recurrence of cancer on her liver. She said she intended to remain on the Supreme Court.[27] Ginsburg died on September 18, 2020, due to complications with her cancer.[1]

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Google News

See also

External links


Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 The New York Times, "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies at 87," September 18, 2020
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Oyez, "Ruth Bader Ginsburg," accessed January 31, 2019
  3. ↑ Seton Hall University, "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 20 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence," May 1, 2014
  4. ↑ NPR, "Justices Ginsburg And Scalia: A Perfect Match Except For Their Views On The Law," February 13, 2015
  5. ↑ Federal Judicial Center, "Ginsburg, Ruth Bader," accessed April 8, 2021
  6. ↑ Cornell University, "Writings by Justice Ginsburg," accessed April 2, 2014
  7. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Stat pack archive," accessed September 28, 2020
  8. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justice Agreement," accessed September 21, 2020
  9. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "OT18 Agreement Tables," accessed July 3, 2019
  10. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Frequency in the Majority," accessed September 21, 2020
  11. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "OT18 Frequency in the Majority," accessed July 3, 2019
  12. ↑ The Supreme Court Database, "Analysis," accessed June 11, 2019
  13. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill," June 17, 2019
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 Supreme Court of the United States, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, June 30, 2014
  16. ↑ Oyez.org, "Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company," May 29, 2007
  17. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, May 29, 2007
  18. ↑ Associated Press, "AP interview: Ginsburg doesn't want to envision a Trump win," July 8, 2016
  19. ↑ The New York Times, "Ruth Bader Ginsburg, no fan of Donald Trump, critiques latest term," July 10, 2016
  20. ↑ CNN, "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg calls Trump a 'faker,' he says she should resign," July 13, 2016
  21. ↑ NBC News, "Ruth Bader Ginsburg: I Regret 'Ill-Advised' Criticisms of Donald Trump," July 14, 2016
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 Senator Charles E. Schumer, "Schumer: 'The myth of the Ginsburg Precedent,'" September 1, 2005
  23. ↑ The Independent Institute, "Abandon the 'Ginsburg Rule' for Supreme Court candidates," June 26, 2010
  24. ↑ Federalist Society, "Precedent from the confirmation hearings of Ruth Bader Ginsburg," November 11, 1993
  25. ↑ Washington Post "Husband of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies," June 27, 2010
  26. ↑ USA Today "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has malignant growths removed from lung, no signs of cancer remain," accessed January 21, 2018
  27. ↑ Washington Post, "Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she is being treated for recurrence of cancer," July 17, 2020
Political offices
Preceded by:
Byron White 		Supreme Court
1993–2020 		Succeeded by:
Amy Coney Barrett
Preceded by:
Harold Leventhal 		DC Circuit Court of Appeals
1980–1993 		Succeeded by:
David Tatel



Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg&oldid=9857867"