This weekend, the International Civil Rights Center and Museum issued a public statement on the death of former US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
She was known as a staunch protector of civil rights – something the museum also attempts to promote through its mission of preserving the past.
Not surprisingly, those who authored the museum’s statement focused on Ginsburg’s long-lasting influence on the course of civil rights and social justice in America.
“Ginsburg, who was long lauded as a voice of reason and a guiding light by which others could set their moral compasses,” the statement reads, “has left an enduring mark on America’s judicial landscape. The nation has lost a tireless and resolute champion of justice.”
Ginsburg, who died on Friday, Sept. 18, served as the director of the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) before taking a seat on the Supreme Court. While with the ACLU, she argued six landmark cases on gender equality to the highest court in the land, which she would later join.
She was appointed to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1980, and then, in 1993, President Bill Clinton made her the second woman to serve on the Supreme Court.
In 1999, Ginsburg won the American Bar Association’s Thurgood Marshall Award for her contributions to gender equality and civil rights.
The statement from the civil rights museum speaks of the importance of Ginsburg’s opinion in the case of Craig v. Boren. In that case, a discriminatory law against men was challenged. The law in question required males to be 21 before they could legally drink alcohol, while women could drink at 18.
According to the statement, “Justice Ginsburg invented the judicial test of ‘intermediate scrutiny.’ This provides a constitutional requirement for a higher level of justification for laws distinguishing rights based on gender. The test has endured as the judicially appropriate standard, increasing the tools available for judicial determinations of equal protection of the law.”
The museum’s statement also pointed to the importance of her vote to uphold a key provision of 2010 Affordable Care Act – better known as Obamacare.
.
If no justice is confirmed to join the Supreme Court before the Nov election, the court will have 8 members, meaning there can be a tie on any issue. That includes a ruling about who wins the Presidential election.
The Left wants to flood the Election Boards will mail-in votes, which cannot be counted until the polls close. Tens of millions. Any idea of how long that will take? Any idea if the tally will be believed? Any idea if all votes were counted? Any idea of the number of illegal mail-in votes?
So, if the Supreme Court cannot determine a winner; who do you think will be our president on Inauguration day?
Think hard. Nancy Pelosi. She can choose her own Vice President.
HYPOCRISY at it’s finest:
McConnell,KY- No. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” Feb. 13. 2016
“Rarely does a Supreme Court vacancy occur in the final year of a presidential term … Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in.” Feb. 18, 2016
Burr, NC-No. “The American people deserve a voice in the nomination of the next Supreme Court Justice. This appointment could easily tip the balance of the court in a direction not supported by the American people as evidenced by 2014’s election results giving Republicans both the Senate and House.” March 16, 2016
Tillis, NC-No. “While President Obama is entitled to nominate an individual to the Supreme Court, the Senate has made it clear it will be exercising its Constitutional authority to withhold consent of the nomination. We are in the middle of a presidential election, and the Senate majority is giving the American people a voice to determine the direction of the Supreme Court.” March 16, 2016
Sullivan, AK – No. “The decision to withhold advancement of Mr. Garland’s nomination isn’t about the individual, it’s about the principle. Alaskans, like all Americans, are in the midst of an important national election. The next Supreme Court justice could fundamentally change the direction of the Court for years to come. Alaskans deserve to have a voice in that direction through their vote, and we will ensure that they have one.” March 16, 2016
Boozman, AR – No. “Our country is very split and we are in the midst of a highly contested presidential election. My colleagues and I are committed to giving the American people a voice in the direction the court will take for generations to come.” March 16, 2016
Cotton-AR No. “In a few short months, we will have a new president and new senators who can consider the next justice with the full faith of the people. Why would we cut off the national debate on the next justice? Why would we squelch the voice of the populace? Why would we deny the voters a chance to weigh in on the make-up of the Supreme Court?” March 16, 2016
Gardner, CO – No. “… the next president of the United States should have the opportunity to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court.” March 16, 2016
Rubio, FL – No. “I don’t think we should be moving forward on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term. I would say that if this was a Republlcian president.” Rubio also opposed Garland on merit, he said. March 17, 2016
Grassley, IA-No. “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice. Do we want a court that interprets the law, or do we want a court that acts as an unelected super legislature? This year is a tremendous opportunity for our country to have a sincere and honest debate about the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system of government.” March 16, 2016
27 Additional Republican Senators with same stand.
Sickening.
“HYPOCRISY at it’s finest:”
Lizzy, yes, you are definitely hypocrisy not at its finest, but at its worst! You failed to quote even ONE democrat who said we had to vote on and install a supreme court justice in 2016. Since you were able to come up with quotes from republicans, I’m going to ass-ume that you COULD have found some quotes from democrats, but just found it too convenient to leave them out. Hypocrite? Yes! Your picture should be next to the word in the dictionary!
@Wayne, pray tell what does Democratic quotes have to do with ANYTHING in this context??? Really, are you that dense?
I thot the museum was non-profit. Beholding to the taxpayers for support. Therefore, no political opinions.