Ginsburg On Rulings, Race

Justice says public dismay about Congress spills over to high court.

, The National Law Journal

   | 6 Comments

The high court was “once a leader in the world” in rooting out racial discrimination,” the justice said in a wide-ranging interview. “What’s amazing is how things have changed.”

What's being said

  • ColorBlindJustice

    Mr. Fox, you seem both delusional and confused, I‘m afraid. Delusional to assert -- as a black man sits in the Oval Office -- that "racism has worsened" since passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and confused in your hyperbolic claim that said act has been "eviscerated." The only civil rights era statute that has had its scope appropriately pared back in recent years is the 1965 Voting Right Act. If you‘re going to be hysterical, at least get your statutes straight.

    As for Justice Ginsburg‘s disfavoring the notion of two-year law degrees and thus the prospect of still more parasitic attorneys running around looking for someone to sue, this in part may explain the rabid left‘s desire to have her quit the bench while lame-duck President Obama can still nominate her successor and Harry Reid can see that nomination through the Senate. Tick, tick, tick . . . .

  • WilliamFox

    TopDog: if you are not a person of color, I would be very cautious to say that it‘s "not" about something - "race" -- if it does not affect you. When you look at history, it‘s clearly a "race" problem -- that ultimately affects everyone whether they know it or not. And Alex: all the justices are extremely ideological and some Republican presidents over the last 35 years set out on filling the judiciary with ideologically conservative, white male judges to lifelong terms on the bench. The voting patterns of the SCOTUS, particularly with issues pertaining to civil rights, are not "due to chance" and this is why 50 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964‘s passage, the laws substantive strength has been eviscerated and racism has worsened.

  • Chris

    Interesting that Notorious RBG likens a plumber to a law student with two years under their belt. Reminds me of a story which may have been told before... A friend, a senior level attorney of a private firm in a western state said he called a plumber to his home to fix his leaking toilet. When the plumber handed him the bill for $300 after only an hour in the home, my friend said, through stunned emotions, "I‘m an ATTORNEY and I can‘t get $300 an hour!". The plumber, emotionless, replied "I know. That‘s why I became a plumber."

  • Transparency Fan

    I have never understood this notion that judges shouldn‘t discuss their views on issues that might come before them. It makes no sense. The potential for harm in any given situation would arise from the view itself--not its prior disclosure.

    If a judge‘s view on a matter had the potential to affect the outcome of my case, I would much rather know it up front. That way, I could factor it into my litigation strategy.

  • TOPDOG

    This is not a race problem.It is everyone‘s problem. The Authoritarians wish you to believe it is a racial problem, this is so they can continue to get away with their misdeeds. The old police program of divide and conquer is getting very thin. Americans are much less subject to fall for these old tactics

  • Alex W.

    Interesting as these interviews are -- and they really are -- it is dismaying to have justices discussing cases or issues that may come before them. If I were a litigant I would find it discouraging to know that Ginsberg is against me no matter what on issue X. Then again, its nice to know how prejudiced she is (and surprisingly biased an unanalytical on some issues).

    She comes across as much more rigid and ideological than I thought. And also much less intellectually rigorous. Perhaps her good opinions are written by clerks.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202667692557

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.