WEBVTT - What Are Some of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Harshest Dissents?

0:00:01.920 --> 0:00:06.400
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to brain Stuff, a production of iHeart Radio. Hey

0:00:06.440 --> 0:00:10.639
<v Speaker 1>brain Stuff, Lauren Bogobam Here. Last month, we ran an

0:00:10.640 --> 0:00:14.280
<v Speaker 1>episode about the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

0:00:14.520 --> 0:00:17.680
<v Speaker 1>and some of her historic concurring opinions during the twenty

0:00:17.680 --> 0:00:20.000
<v Speaker 1>seven years that she sat on the highest court of

0:00:20.040 --> 0:00:23.800
<v Speaker 1>the United States. Today, we wanted to highlight a few

0:00:23.840 --> 0:00:26.880
<v Speaker 1>cases in which Justice Ginsburg did not agree with the

0:00:26.880 --> 0:00:30.480
<v Speaker 1>majority opinion of the Court, because, after all, a dissenting

0:00:30.480 --> 0:00:35.080
<v Speaker 1>opinion can be just as important. First up, let's look

0:00:35.080 --> 0:00:37.520
<v Speaker 1>at the case of Bush versus Gore from the year

0:00:37.560 --> 0:00:41.040
<v Speaker 1>two thousand. Anyone old enough to remember the two thousand

0:00:41.120 --> 0:00:46.280
<v Speaker 1>presidential election probably shutters at the phrase hanging Chad, referring

0:00:46.320 --> 0:00:49.800
<v Speaker 1>to an incompletely punched paper ballot. The figure of speech

0:00:49.840 --> 0:00:52.720
<v Speaker 1>became a main staple of news headlines and late night

0:00:52.760 --> 0:00:56.560
<v Speaker 1>TV monologues for months. It all started in the state

0:00:56.560 --> 0:00:59.960
<v Speaker 1>of Florida, where it was reported that Republican presidential candidate

0:01:00.000 --> 0:01:03.560
<v Speaker 1>George W. Bush had beat Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore

0:01:03.880 --> 0:01:06.560
<v Speaker 1>by just one thousand, seven hundred and eighty four votes.

0:01:07.400 --> 0:01:10.400
<v Speaker 1>Because the margin was so slim, just zero point zero

0:01:10.440 --> 0:01:14.600
<v Speaker 1>one percent, state law required an automatic machine recount, which

0:01:14.600 --> 0:01:17.880
<v Speaker 1>shrunk Bush's lead to just three hundred and twenty seven votes,

0:01:18.640 --> 0:01:21.959
<v Speaker 1>when the margin is that tiny. Florida law allows candidates

0:01:21.959 --> 0:01:25.000
<v Speaker 1>to request a manual recount, which is just what Gore

0:01:25.120 --> 0:01:29.319
<v Speaker 1>did in the four counties that traditionally voted Democrat, Volucia,

0:01:29.520 --> 0:01:34.240
<v Speaker 1>Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami Dade. The problem was the

0:01:34.319 --> 0:01:37.880
<v Speaker 1>counties were given seven days to certify their election returns

0:01:37.920 --> 0:01:40.720
<v Speaker 1>to the Secretary of State, and they were concerned that

0:01:40.760 --> 0:01:45.080
<v Speaker 1>they wouldn't make the deadline. Three counties missed the deadline entirely,

0:01:45.560 --> 0:01:50.080
<v Speaker 1>Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami Dade. Florida's Secretary of State,

0:01:50.160 --> 0:01:53.520
<v Speaker 1>Katherine Harris, had required any counties who needed a later

0:01:53.560 --> 0:01:57.000
<v Speaker 1>filing date to submit a written explanation of the circumstances,

0:01:57.800 --> 0:02:00.800
<v Speaker 1>but none of the county's submissions met harry Us standards

0:02:00.840 --> 0:02:04.040
<v Speaker 1>for an extension, so she went ahead and certified Bush

0:02:04.120 --> 0:02:08.040
<v Speaker 1>as Florida's winner. Fast forward a few weeks to win

0:02:08.080 --> 0:02:10.399
<v Speaker 1>Gore's campaign to pained an order from the Florida State

0:02:10.400 --> 0:02:14.720
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court for statewide manual recount. The next day, on

0:02:14.840 --> 0:02:17.280
<v Speaker 1>December nine, in a five to four decision, the U

0:02:17.400 --> 0:02:20.359
<v Speaker 1>S Supreme Court ruled that the manual recounts must halt

0:02:20.639 --> 0:02:24.080
<v Speaker 1>and agreed to hear oral arguments from both parties. On

0:02:24.120 --> 0:02:28.160
<v Speaker 1>December eleven, both parties presented their cases, Bush's team arguing

0:02:28.200 --> 0:02:30.959
<v Speaker 1>that the Florida Supreme Court had exceeded its authority when

0:02:30.960 --> 0:02:34.480
<v Speaker 1>it authorized the manual recount, the Gore's team arguing that

0:02:34.520 --> 0:02:37.080
<v Speaker 1>the case had already been decided at state level and

0:02:37.200 --> 0:02:41.200
<v Speaker 1>was not a matter for the federal courts. The U. S.

0:02:41.200 --> 0:02:44.000
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court, and a seven to two vote, overturned the

0:02:44.000 --> 0:02:47.480
<v Speaker 1>Florida decision in favor of Bush's team, ruling that the

0:02:47.480 --> 0:02:50.920
<v Speaker 1>Florida Supreme Court had violated the equal Protection clause of

0:02:50.960 --> 0:02:55.160
<v Speaker 1>the Fourteenth Amendment. In the end, on the entire matter,

0:02:55.400 --> 0:02:58.440
<v Speaker 1>the justices ruled five to four, with the majority arguing

0:02:58.480 --> 0:03:00.600
<v Speaker 1>that the Florida Supreme Court's decision and to hold a

0:03:00.639 --> 0:03:04.720
<v Speaker 1>statewide recount had created a new election law, something only

0:03:04.800 --> 0:03:09.600
<v Speaker 1>the state legislator could do. Writing for the five justice majority,

0:03:09.840 --> 0:03:12.440
<v Speaker 1>entered in Scalia stated the votes that were ordered to

0:03:12.480 --> 0:03:15.840
<v Speaker 1>be counted were not legal votes, that is, those in

0:03:15.880 --> 0:03:18.360
<v Speaker 1>which there is a clear indication of the intent of

0:03:18.360 --> 0:03:21.360
<v Speaker 1>the voter, so the recount would do irreparable harm to

0:03:21.440 --> 0:03:25.760
<v Speaker 1>Bush and the integrity of the democratic process. The dissenters,

0:03:25.880 --> 0:03:29.400
<v Speaker 1>Ginsburg included, felt that the real threat to the democratic

0:03:29.440 --> 0:03:33.400
<v Speaker 1>process was not ordering a recount despite being flawed. They

0:03:33.400 --> 0:03:36.640
<v Speaker 1>said a recount should be allowed to proceed because no

0:03:36.800 --> 0:03:40.720
<v Speaker 1>vote should have a deadline to be counted. One noteworthy

0:03:40.760 --> 0:03:43.720
<v Speaker 1>aspect of ginsburg dissent, she ended it with a plain

0:03:44.000 --> 0:03:49.240
<v Speaker 1>I dissent rather than her traditional I respectfully dissent. Next,

0:03:49.320 --> 0:03:52.600
<v Speaker 1>let's look at the case of Shelby County versus Holder.

0:03:53.320 --> 0:03:56.160
<v Speaker 1>To do so, let's go back to five at the

0:03:56.160 --> 0:03:58.960
<v Speaker 1>height of the Civil rights movement, when Congress enacted the

0:03:59.000 --> 0:04:01.800
<v Speaker 1>Voting Rights Act QUOTE to banish the blight of racial

0:04:01.840 --> 0:04:05.920
<v Speaker 1>discrimination in voting, which had been rampant even after previous

0:04:06.000 --> 0:04:09.840
<v Speaker 1>legislature had technically made it legal for black people, Indigenous people,

0:04:10.000 --> 0:04:14.200
<v Speaker 1>and people of color to vote across the United States.

0:04:14.200 --> 0:04:17.239
<v Speaker 1>Certain sections of the Act created rules meant to protect

0:04:17.240 --> 0:04:20.640
<v Speaker 1>it from changes down the road. In particular, Section four

0:04:20.720 --> 0:04:23.760
<v Speaker 1>B established a formula to identify areas of the country

0:04:23.800 --> 0:04:27.719
<v Speaker 1>where discriminatory tests or devices had been most prevalent, and

0:04:27.760 --> 0:04:31.760
<v Speaker 1>to provide stricter provisions in those areas. These tests or

0:04:31.760 --> 0:04:37.000
<v Speaker 1>devices included voting prerequisites like literacy tests, and under section

0:04:37.080 --> 0:04:40.160
<v Speaker 1>five of the Act, jurisdictions were required to seek approval

0:04:40.200 --> 0:04:43.240
<v Speaker 1>by the Attorney General or a three judge DC panel

0:04:43.560 --> 0:04:47.440
<v Speaker 1>before making any changes to voting practices. This feature of

0:04:47.480 --> 0:04:50.880
<v Speaker 1>the Act, known as a preclearance, was meant to ensure

0:04:50.920 --> 0:04:53.919
<v Speaker 1>that new changes would have neither the intent nor the

0:04:53.960 --> 0:04:59.200
<v Speaker 1>effect of racial discrimination on voting. While Section five was

0:04:59.240 --> 0:05:03.279
<v Speaker 1>initially set expire after five years, the Act was reauthorized

0:05:03.320 --> 0:05:09.280
<v Speaker 1>several times over the decades. Then in Alabama's Shelby County

0:05:09.520 --> 0:05:13.440
<v Speaker 1>challenged its constitutionality based on these tests and devices and

0:05:13.560 --> 0:05:18.360
<v Speaker 1>preclearance requirements. The claim was that the sections exceeded Congress's

0:05:18.440 --> 0:05:23.280
<v Speaker 1>power and thus were unconstitutional. According to the Supreme Courts

0:05:23.320 --> 0:05:27.560
<v Speaker 1>five to four majority opinion, Section four was deemed unconstitutional

0:05:27.720 --> 0:05:30.479
<v Speaker 1>because it imposed burdens that no longer made sense in

0:05:30.520 --> 0:05:34.039
<v Speaker 1>the modern era and represented an unconstitutional violation of the

0:05:34.080 --> 0:05:36.960
<v Speaker 1>power to regulate elections, which are supposed to be governed

0:05:37.000 --> 0:05:42.200
<v Speaker 1>by the states themselves. In another major descent, Ginsburg argued

0:05:42.200 --> 0:05:46.080
<v Speaker 1>that the amendments support Congress's authority to enact legislation specifically

0:05:46.120 --> 0:05:49.919
<v Speaker 1>targeting potential state abuses as long as Congress demonstrates that

0:05:49.960 --> 0:05:54.120
<v Speaker 1>the means taken rationally advanced a legitimate objective, like the

0:05:54.200 --> 0:05:58.200
<v Speaker 1>Voting Rights Act. She wrote, growing up preclearance when it

0:05:58.240 --> 0:06:01.480
<v Speaker 1>has worked and is continuing to war to stop discriminatory

0:06:01.600 --> 0:06:04.920
<v Speaker 1>changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm

0:06:05.040 --> 0:06:10.440
<v Speaker 1>because you're not getting wet. Ginsburg wasn't alone in her opinion.

0:06:10.960 --> 0:06:14.159
<v Speaker 1>Many leaders in politics and law expressed deep disappointment with

0:06:14.200 --> 0:06:17.800
<v Speaker 1>the decision, and since the ruling, several states that were

0:06:17.839 --> 0:06:22.200
<v Speaker 1>once covered under preclearance have passed laws to remove provisions

0:06:22.200 --> 0:06:26.520
<v Speaker 1>like online voting registration and early voting. Five years after

0:06:26.560 --> 0:06:30.119
<v Speaker 1>the ruling, nearly a thousand polling places had been shut down,

0:06:30.520 --> 0:06:36.120
<v Speaker 1>many of which were located in predominantly African American communities. Finally,

0:06:36.360 --> 0:06:39.040
<v Speaker 1>let's consider the two thousand seven case of lead Better

0:06:39.200 --> 0:06:42.919
<v Speaker 1>versus Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. Anyone who saw the

0:06:42.960 --> 0:06:47.679
<v Speaker 1>documentary RBG probably remembers the assertive Alabama drawl of Lily

0:06:47.800 --> 0:06:51.760
<v Speaker 1>lead Better, the plaintiff in this important case of employment discrimination,

0:06:52.800 --> 0:06:55.280
<v Speaker 1>over the course of her nearly two decade career at

0:06:55.279 --> 0:06:57.919
<v Speaker 1>the good Year Planned in Gadsden, Alabama, where lad Better

0:06:58.000 --> 0:07:00.799
<v Speaker 1>was one of just a few female supervisors. Led Better

0:07:00.839 --> 0:07:03.839
<v Speaker 1>faced sexual harassment and was tolled by her employer that

0:07:03.920 --> 0:07:08.719
<v Speaker 1>women shouldn't be working there because salaried employees or given

0:07:08.800 --> 0:07:12.840
<v Speaker 1>or denied raises based on performance evaluations. Leadbetter believed she

0:07:12.920 --> 0:07:16.880
<v Speaker 1>was being short changed compared with her male counterparts. Good

0:07:16.920 --> 0:07:20.559
<v Speaker 1>Year forbade employees to discuss pay, so lad Better didn't

0:07:20.600 --> 0:07:23.960
<v Speaker 1>have solid proof of any sex based discrimination until she

0:07:24.040 --> 0:07:28.080
<v Speaker 1>received an anonymous note listing the salaries of three male managers.

0:07:28.800 --> 0:07:30.960
<v Speaker 1>That's when she learned that she had been paid forty

0:07:31.000 --> 0:07:34.000
<v Speaker 1>percent less than the men with equal jobs in her division.

0:07:34.560 --> 0:07:37.280
<v Speaker 1>Lad Better filed suit after her retirement in November of

0:07:37.360 --> 0:07:40.640
<v Speaker 1>nineteen ninety eight, claiming discrimination under Title seven of the

0:07:40.680 --> 0:07:44.160
<v Speaker 1>Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four, which prohibits employers

0:07:44.200 --> 0:07:47.960
<v Speaker 1>from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color,

0:07:48.200 --> 0:07:52.360
<v Speaker 1>national origin, and religion. The district court awarded lad Better

0:07:52.520 --> 0:07:55.680
<v Speaker 1>over three point five million dollars in back pay and damages,

0:07:55.880 --> 0:07:58.600
<v Speaker 1>which the judge later reduced to three hundred and sixty

0:07:58.600 --> 0:08:03.680
<v Speaker 1>thousand dollars, but upon repeal, Goodyear argued that four Leadbetters

0:08:03.760 --> 0:08:07.440
<v Speaker 1>claims to hold up in court the alleged discriminatory events

0:08:07.480 --> 0:08:09.720
<v Speaker 1>would have had to occur within the one hundred and

0:08:09.760 --> 0:08:13.120
<v Speaker 1>eighty day period before her filing, and that since she

0:08:13.160 --> 0:08:17.920
<v Speaker 1>had waited, her claim should not stand. The Eleventh Circuit

0:08:18.080 --> 0:08:21.120
<v Speaker 1>ruled in good Year's favor, and while there were to

0:08:21.400 --> 0:08:24.480
<v Speaker 1>pay decisions made during that one and eighty day period,

0:08:24.840 --> 0:08:27.960
<v Speaker 1>the court felt quote, there was insufficient evidence to prove

0:08:28.040 --> 0:08:31.280
<v Speaker 1>that Goodyear had acted with discriminatory intent during that time.

0:08:32.760 --> 0:08:34.720
<v Speaker 1>When the case made it to the Supreme Court, the

0:08:34.800 --> 0:08:37.560
<v Speaker 1>justices had to decide whether a plaintiff is allowed to

0:08:37.600 --> 0:08:40.480
<v Speaker 1>bring an action under Title seven when the illegal pay

0:08:40.520 --> 0:08:44.559
<v Speaker 1>discrimination their alleging occurred outside of the statutory limitations period.

0:08:45.280 --> 0:08:48.240
<v Speaker 1>The Court voted five to four the Leadbetter had missed

0:08:48.280 --> 0:08:54.240
<v Speaker 1>her window. Ginsburg wrote a passionate dissent, arguing that quote,

0:08:54.480 --> 0:08:57.720
<v Speaker 1>pay disparities often occur, as they did in Leadbetters case

0:08:57.960 --> 0:09:01.840
<v Speaker 1>in small increments cause to suspect that discrimination is at work,

0:09:01.960 --> 0:09:06.520
<v Speaker 1>develops only over time. Comparative pay information, moreover, is often

0:09:06.600 --> 0:09:10.520
<v Speaker 1>hidden from the employee's view. Employers may keep under wraps

0:09:10.559 --> 0:09:14.320
<v Speaker 1>the pay differentials maintained among supervisors, no less the reasons

0:09:14.320 --> 0:09:18.400
<v Speaker 1>for those differentials. Small initial discrepancies may not be seen

0:09:18.480 --> 0:09:21.960
<v Speaker 1>as meat for a federal case, particularly when the employee

0:09:22.040 --> 0:09:25.160
<v Speaker 1>trying to succeed in a non traditional environment is averse

0:09:25.240 --> 0:09:29.520
<v Speaker 1>to making ways. While the case didn't turn out as

0:09:29.600 --> 0:09:31.960
<v Speaker 1>lead Better supporters had hoped, it did go on to

0:09:32.000 --> 0:09:35.160
<v Speaker 1>make history. On January twenty nine of two thousand nine,

0:09:35.400 --> 0:09:38.880
<v Speaker 1>President Barack Obama signed the Lily Leadbetter Fair Pay Act

0:09:39.200 --> 0:09:42.360
<v Speaker 1>as the first piece of legislation of his administration. The

0:09:42.440 --> 0:09:45.960
<v Speaker 1>law overturned the Supreme Court's decision and states that each

0:09:46.000 --> 0:09:50.480
<v Speaker 1>paycheck containing discriminatory compensation is a separate violation, no matter

0:09:50.520 --> 0:09:58.760
<v Speaker 1>when that discrimination began. Today's episode was written by John

0:09:58.760 --> 0:10:01.199
<v Speaker 1>Partano and produced by Eyler Clay. From one on this

0:10:01.360 --> 0:10:03.560
<v Speaker 1>and lots of other curious topics, visit how stuff works

0:10:03.559 --> 0:10:05.920
<v Speaker 1>dot com. Brainstuff is a production of I Heart Radio.

0:10:06.120 --> 0:10:08.840
<v Speaker 1>For more podcasts my heart Radio, visit the iHeart Radio app,

0:10:08.960 --> 0:10:11.600
<v Speaker 1>Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.