Ginsburg defends dissents — oral ones, too
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking out on the record number of dissenting opinions announced orally at the Court’s last Term, said that she would “continue to give voice to my dissent if, in my judgment, the Court veers in the wrong direction when important matters are at stake.” She stressed, though, that it would not be routine for her to “speak out” — orally or in writing — but only on matters she considers truly important. Quoting Judge Jerome Frank on the practice of Justice Louis Brandeis of sometimes avoiding dissenting opinions altogether, Justice Ginsburg said that Brandeis’ “shots [were] all the harder because he chose his ground.”
The text of her 20th annual Leo and Berry Eizenstat Lecture, titled “The Role of Dissenting Opinions” and delivered in Atlanta on Sunday, can be found here. It was released by the Court Tuesday.
I appreciate Lyle Denniston bringing Justice Ginsburg’s Atlanta speech about the role of dissenting opinions to our attention.
Speaking at a synagogue, Justice Ginsburg prefaced her analysis with the comment that the judicial role is to “pursue justice” and that this unction for her arises from Jewish tradition. I wonder where in Biblical tradition she acquired the curious blind spot that the constitutional right to destroy human life before birth, of which she is such a vigorous advocate, comports with justice. When Jews were killed because they were Jews, justice demanded reparation, but where is the justice for the innocent unborn?
Comment by Martin Wishnatsky — October 23, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
It is worth linking to and reading the entirety of Justice Ginsburg’s speech for one might be surprised, as I was, by its distinctly political character and its not-so-subtle personal attacks on Justice Alito. Justice Ginsburg appears far too full of herself in suggesting a benighted group of 5 justices failed in many instances to produce the “correct” result that she urged. There is some hypocrisy in there as well for on the one hand she appears to deride Congress for acting to “undo” a precedent of the court (by passing the partial birth abortion ban) and in the next breath she lauds Congress for attempting to undo the Ledbetter decision. Indeed, she takes credit for the legislative effort, noting that it was she who called for Congress to undo the Ledbetter decision, and going so far as to identify and give credit to Ted Kennedy for spearheading the effort to correct her errant majority of fellow jurists. She follows up by bemoaning the promise of President Bush to veto the initiative. She sounded more like a lobbyist for NOW and the ACLU than a Supreme Court justice and for her to give a speech of that content hardly serves to dispel public perception that judges are politicans in robes. And we wonder why we now have bloodbaths over judicial nominations – Justice Ginsburg has well appeared to have answered that question.
Comment by Kay Torre — October 23, 2007 @ 9:20 pm