Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Supreme Court Nomination Hearings from PBS NewsHour and EMK Institute

Stay Informed: http://emkinstitute.org/ginsburgvid

As the Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan get underway, the Edward M. Kennedy Institute is partnering with the PBS NewsHour to provide video highlights of the nine most recent Senate confirmation hearings.

Justice Ginsburg, only the second woman ever to serve on the high court, was confirmed by a 96-3 vote in August 1993.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• ruth
• bader
• ginsburg
• supreme
• court
• justice
• confirmation
• hearing
• elena
• kagan
• barack
• obama
• ted
• kennedy
• institute
• senate
• pbs
• newshour
• macneil
• lehrer

[writersblock26]

Thank you for posting this, EMKInstitute.

[FineHawaiianArt]

Those who wish the reverse the decision relating to a woman's right to choose to kill her unborn child or not, effectively advocate that the state or feds must intervene to protect that child as it would a citizen rendering a woman a prisoner under 24/hour observation by the state to insure the health safety and welfare of the child. This is the antithesis of freedom, and if one had to choose between the two evils, the few who choose abortion do not out-weight the freedoms of those who do not.

[b7702]

We'll agree to disagree. I still don't understand the context or reason for your question. Also, as soon as you introduced the possibility that a Supreme Court Justice's arguments, in an area of law she pioneered and spent years thinking through and researching, as "throwing theories around hoping one will stick," I found the cost of a substantive response outweighed the benefit. I'm sure you'll find more than adequate answers if you take the time to dig through said research. Best of luck.

[etsneroj]

@b7702, I often write briefs with alternative legal arguments. Sometimes you have a threshold question that, depending on the answr, takes you down different paths requiring different arguments. Sometimes, that's not the case and your'e just throwing theories around hoping one will stick. When such theories are totally incompatible, they tend to highlight weak or false assumptions in your reasoning, making them risky to make to the court. Ginsburg's arguments sound like the latter.

[b7702]

@etsneroj The basis of the whole line of questioning was her brief in defense the woman. She quoted the argument you mention from her brief and was being questioned about it. Regardless where the brief is discussed, whether in a Senate Judiciary Hearing or in a Starbucks, the fact that two legal arguments are not congruent just doesn't matter. And these two arguments (14th Amendment DPC and/or EPC) were very commonly used to challenge similar policies.

[etsneroj]

@b7702, I understand the concept of alternative arguments, but those two statements, as Ginsburg explains them here to the Senate Judiciary Committee (not in a brief) are contradictory. I actually think both arguments are plausible, but they are not congruent. Also, alternative arguments usually take alternative views of the law ("even if this legal theory doesn't work....this theory does..."). But here, she's offering alternative views of reality (who has the choice). A daring move.

[b7702]

Sorry the regulation not the statute.

[b7702]

@etsneroj No contradiction. She was challenging the statute with each individual argument.  If either argument were successful, her claim had to succeed and the regulation would be struck down.

[etsneroj]

Is there a contradiction between these two Ginsburg statements: (1) The choice to have a baby or abortion, is uniquely the woman's. "Her choice is controlling" (2) the military requirement for an abortion to stay in the service violated equal protection clause because it punished a woman's choice, but not a man's choice. Why punish men if you think its not their choice to make?

[SexyLiLLeilaniMya]

Justice Ginsburg is my favorite on the court she is a great leader and a great woman of the law!