Speaking to an audience at the University of Minesota Law School, U. S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that we should watch closely what the U. S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decides in pending cases as a clue to how soon SCOTUS might take up the question of gay marriage bans.
The 6th Circuit Court hears appeals from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. If their decisions "fall in line with" other rulings from all the other appeals court decisions, then there will be "no need for us to rush."
As I understand her, she's saying that as long as the appeals courts are all deciding these state appeals the same way, everyone can assume that things will continue to go that way. Only when there is a contrary decision -- i.e., one of the state bans on marriage equality is upheld -- will SCOTUS need to act expeditiously.
Ginsburg also commented on the "remarkable" shift in public opinion, and attributed it -- as many of us have done -- to people coming out. "Having people close to us who say who they are — that made the attitude change in this country," she said.
This diminutive powerhouse was asked, during an extensive Q&A period, if she had an unrealized dream. "If I had any talent God could give me, I would be a great diva," said the noted opera lover.
To me, one of the world's strange friendships is that between liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg and conservative fellow justice Antonin Scalia. They share a love of opera; and in fact someone has written a comic opera about the two of them, "Scalia/Ginsburg," which will have its premier next year in Virginia.
This report of her talk did not say whether she was asked about when she might retire. All this other stuff is interesting, but that's the real question.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It has bothered me that my primary source for news items (Huffington Post) is guilty of hyping news, even sometimes distorting meaning, by the headlines it writes for news blurbs.
ReplyDeleteThe latest example is this story. Note my headline, It's rather neutral, simply stating a fact as Ginsburg did. But HP's initial headline was something like Ginsburg: uphold bans and we'll step in.
Now, later in the day, its even more dire: ""Warning from the justice: Deny equality and we'll step in."
That really is a distortion of what Ginsburg said. I think it was as I have written above. Simply stating that when contradictory decisions are made by different appeals courts, that's when it requires SCOTUS to resolve an issue.
This makes it sound like they are all gung-ho to overturn the bans, and if you don't do as we say, WE WILL TAKE ACTION.
I wish all the justices were that eager overturn bans. But it doesn't help the cause to be ridiculous in your hype. It undermines your cause when someone then points out how wrong you are about some part of your argument -- even though your main point is correct.
HuffPost has now changed it's headline . . . again. now it simply says "Watch out" beneath a picture of an alarmed-looking Justice Ginsburg.
ReplyDeleteI would hate this kind of super-hyping if it were Republicans. I also hate it when it's my prime news source with a progressive slant.