The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Today in Supreme Court History: March 15, 1933
3/15/1933: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's birthday.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Bakery Sales Drivers Local Union No. 33 v. Wagshal, 333 U.S. 437 (decided March 15, 1948): A deli changed bakeries because its drivers would deliver only at noon. (This seems odd to me. I grew up in a deli, and later delivered to delis, and this is a b-a-d time for deliveries, with the lunch crowd waiting for their sandwiches. Bakery goods, such as rolls and bagels, are customarily delivered in early morning, for obvious reasons.) Anyway — the bakery drivers’ union refused to let any of its members service the deli and picketed; the deli sued in District Court under the Norris-LaGuardia Act and got an injunction stopping any interference with the deli’s business. Here, the Court notes that this was not a “labor dispute” such as allows review of the injunction under the Act. (Faced with the injunction, the union lifted the boycott and reason prevailed.)
Eccles v. People’s Bank of Lakewood Village, Cal., 333 U.S. 426 (decided March 15, 1948): declaratory judgment to bank as to lack of conflict of interest was premature even though Federal Reserve had already approved admission into Federal Reserve System after investigation of possible improper stock buy-up cleared it
The Antelope, 25 U.S. 546 (decided March 15, 1827): Spaniards entitled to reclaim Africans which already belonged to them despite seizure of vessel under Slave Trade Act
Radio and Television Broadcast Technicians Local 1264 v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc., 380 U.S. 255 (decided March 15, 1965): NLRB preempts state court intervention into picket of radio station having less than statutory minimum $100,000 in gross receipts, where it was part of larger radio network
Alabama v. Texas, 347 U.S. 272 (decided March 15, 1954): Congress has plenary power to give land to some states and not others (such as under Submerged Lands Act of 1953) and states cannot question it
United States v. Evans, 333 U.S. 483 (decided March 15, 1948): dismissing indictment for harboring illegal aliens because the statute is so unclear as to what penalty applies (“The choice is not simply between no penalty, at the one extreme, and, at the other, fine plus imprisonment up to the specified maxima for each alien concealed or harbored. The problem is rather one of multiple choice, presenting at least three, and perhaps four, possible yet inconsistent answers on the statute’s wording”)
Woods v. Stone, 333 U.S. 472 (decided March 15, 1943): one-year statute of limitations for government to recoup excess rent (in violation of wartime price controls), where due to owner’s failure to register property excess rent escaped the attention of authorities, began to run from the date of breach of Area Rent Director’s refund order, not from the date when excess rents were collected
Walters v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 347 U.S. 231 (decided March 15, 1954): not denial of Equal Protection to treat self-employment income differently from wage income for tax purposes
Federal Power Commission v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 347 U.S. 239 (decided March 15, 1954): hydroelectric provider could set off rent paid to owners of upstream water rights from surplus earnings for the purposes of amortization reserve
Phelps v. Oaks, 117 U.S. 236 (decided March 15, 1886): for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, federal courts are not bound by state law as to who is real party in interest
ON balance I do think she was terrible. Not a Ketanji and not a Sotomayor but nothing to boast about.
Was there a particular opinion of hers that comes to mind? I can’t really remember any significant case she wrote the majority opinion on other than the VMI military school one where Scalia was the only dissent.
No, you are taking the low road there, opinions only reflect personal philosophy and she , along with Woodrow Wilson and FDR, thought the Founders were just wrong not to affirm all sorts of rights that are no rights at all
““I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa,” says Ginsburg, whom President Clinton nominated to the court in 1993. “That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. … It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.””
What makes the post-apartheid document, which came into effect in 1997, so unique, is its inclusion of positive rights. In addition to freedom from discrimination — including on the basis of sexual orientation, disability or religion — and freedom of speech, under chapter two of the constitution, South Africans have the right to “make decisions concerning reproduction,” “form a political party,” or “form and join a trade union.”
DId you ever hear her speak that way about the UN Declaration on Human Rights ??????
as the African writer of this book shows (Target Africa: Ideological Neocolonialism of the Twenty-first Century)
Whenever you hear, or whenever one sees in the news, problems in Africa — things like drought, things like famine, you know, all these kinds of catastrophes — the one thing that remains resilient, whether this is from the religious point of view or not, is the family. Before even religion (which was something that came to Africa later, during the time of colonialization), first and foremost, the Africans value family and what makes family: a marriage; and what is within marriage: man, woman and children. So all of these things in practice form the core of African society. That is why we have less divorce, and that is why we have more openness to life — these things come first culturally.
But … a lot of Africans are also religious. Let’s just say that when religion came to us, it would have felt consistent with our cultural values. So [in] a lot of places you have very strong Christian populations, and in some other places, you have very strong Muslim populations. But what we hold in common is this value for family life. And if the family life is valued, then, yes, things like abortion are seen as abominations, as taboo, as horrific. … It always is an ugly thing in the minds of people that a mother could ever kill her own, be it before birth, be it after birth — it’s all the same thing: that is, horrific.
RBG wants abortion and wants everyone else to want it.
Africans never agreed with her or with Obama, or Clinton. Biden recently tried to sell homosexuality to Africa and got a record 13 universities demonstrating against him.
Africa is an entire continent with many countries. You should probably stop trying to speak on behalf of all of them. Neocolonialism indeed.
“I do think she was terrible”
Disagree. Her ego and vanity led to Dobbs and a 6-3 GOP majority. Reduced Roberts’ influence somewhat.
She was a giant!
May her memory be as a blessing. 🙂
Former justice Ginsburg seems the person most likely (with former justice Thurgood Marshall also in the running) to have her name placed on the the Supreme Court’s building.
Her poor judgment with respect to retirement likely does little to diminish her prospects in that context.
Translation: “I have an issue with liberal justices, particularly female ones”
Tell us about your issues with black conservative justices?
Justice Thomas is only “conservative” in the misused modern sense. His legal views are actually quite radical, to the extent that they have any consistency.
She died in harness, while still serving on the Supreme Court. Why not go out like that instead of in some nursing home?
Too bad Literal Hitler appointed her successor, a Margaret Atwood character who wants to enslave women. /sarc
Ginsburg being replaced by Barrett was the female equivalent of Thurgood Marshall being replaced by Clarence Thomas. Ginsburg and Marshall were brave trailblazers who were the subject of much discrimination and abuse (and in the case of Marshall at least, physical peril) to fight for rights that we all now accept. The contrast with their replacements could not be more stark.
Uh huh. Thomas definitely lived the life of privilege and tolerance growing up in a shack in Georgia.
Marshall was better litigator than a jurist. I forget in which dissent he basically said that people were too stupid to understand that the death penalty didn’t work and so judges had to declare it unconstitutional.
A stupid judgment to make as a bad law can be constitutional and a good law unconstitutional. You do not know law.
Ginsburg and Marshall were dinosaurs — legacies of an earlier age which no longer existed. A black man heading the EEOC, a female law professor, those didn’t exist in their youth.
Wrong again, she pales in the shadow of a Mary Ann Glendon
Is it the childish superstition that makes someone a giant in your book, or is it the bigotry, gullibility, and obsolescence?
Indeed, when Marshall was put on the Supreme Court he had his glory behind him. When Thomas joined he had his glory ahead of him.
Maybe the comparison with Barrett is more apt than you think.
What glory do you think Thomas has?
The glory… the new friends with big yachts… the luxury RV… all ahead of him
He’s not Literal Hitler, of course. He is, however, Literal Wants To Appease Hitler And Give Up Land To Him In Europe.
At least the guys in the 1930s knew what they were doing was a terrible choice, arrived at for a hoped practical result. Trump’s supporters try to justify Putin’s action as fine.
Funny how Putin behaved himself when Trump was in office.
Oh fuck off with that. Putin “behaved himself, to the extent he did, because he expected Trump to hand over Ukraine. Even now Trump is saying he will do just that if elected.
The idea that Trump is some kind of tough guy that Putin was afraid of is ridiculous, even by your standards. Trump is a fan of Putin, Orban, Xi, etc.
Facts are facts, invasions under Obama and Biden only. .
Its Trump’s wild unpredictability that makes people hesitate.
Conclusions drawn from facts are not themselves inherently facts.
Trump has consistently praised Putin, believed Putin ahead of the US’s own intelligence services and the (GOP-led) Senate Intelligence Committee, pardoned two Russia go-betweens, has threatened to weaken NATO on spurious grounds, etc.
Also facts.
Inasmuch as incompetence and ignorance lead to unpredictability. What do you think Trump will do about Ukraine if he wins?
Horseshit.
Trump wasn’t going to do anything about an invasion of Ukraine, while Biden has in fact done quite a lot, and would do more if that worm Johnson and his imbecilic pals would let him. But they won’t, because Trump said so, and if Ukraine falls they can blame it on Biden.
It’s amazing how popular Margaret Atwater and E.L. James (50 Shades) are with women.
I’m just pointing out a fact — MEN weren’t reading these books or watching the movies, it’s women. It was somehow attractive to middle-aged women.
“Margaret Atwater”… this guy is truly the Hendrix of being wrong.
But that is a self-defeating proposition. IT assumes they were great when not aging. And since you (esp you) would never subscribe to keeping bad people around forever, you are saying nothing
Nice eyebrows!
Take a clue, you gross 1800s Beau Dummels.
Thomas was Chairman from 1982 to 1990. Dr. Ed stated that a “black chairman of the EEOC… didn’t exist in their youth.” RBG was born in 1933, so she was just shy of 50 when Thomas became chair. Even by a generous definition of “youth,” RBG was not young when Thomas was appointed.
In fact, I assumed Dr. Ed was talking about Thomas in that statement.
Never one to get in the way of a good Dr. Ed dunking, but isn’t that what he said?
Thirty years from now…how do we know it won’t be an apocalyptic wasteland where the living will envy the dead? Will old judicial opinions even have survived?
How will the be seen?
If those dissents are being read at 1 First Street, they may be seen at the Ruth Bader Ginsburg Building.
I thought the living did envy the dead. Or is Heaven not real?
I think Dr. Ed was talking about Thurgood Marshall, and confused him with Clarence Thomas. Dunk away!
Who knows?