Unequal protection
Reading the Washington post this morning, I stumbled over an article by Roberts Barnes who fawns over Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s flaunting the conventions of the Supreme Court by reading her decision aloud in a case in Alabama;
The court ruled 5 to 4 that Lilly Ledbetter, the lone female supervisor at a tire plant in Gadsden, Ala., did not file her lawsuit against Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. in the timely manner specified by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
* * * * *
Speaking for the three other dissenting justices, Ginsburg’s voice was as precise and emotionless as if she were reading a banking decision, but the words were stinging.
“In our view, the court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination,” she said.
Last month, Ginsburg rebuked the same five-justice majority for upholding the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act and for language in the opinion that she said reflected “ancient notions about women’s place in the family and under the Constitution — ideas that have long since been discredited.”
Now, I’m no lawyer, although I work in the law field, sort of, but this sounds like Justice Ginsberg is making her decisions based on Constitutionally-prohibited grounds. According to the Fourteenth Amendment;
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now the 14th Amendment prohibits giving a longer lawsuit filing period for women than for men, yet based on her experience as a woman, she seems to think that she’s an expert on these things called “women’s rights” – what that means, I have no idea. I’ve done a search of the Constitution and no where can I find the word woman, or a variation thereof. The closest thing is the 19th Amendment;
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
It made us all equal in the voting booth, it didn’t take away any men’s rights and it gave equal rights to women.Â
So can someone tell me what, exactly, the Constitution guarantees women that it doesn’t guarentee men, or what it guarantees gays and not straights. Where are these “[fill in the name of your particular group of malcontents here] rights”?
And someone tell me how a justice on the United States Supreme Court, the court which, since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, has had the responsibility to interpret the CONSTITUTION as it applies to protections of citizens from the government, can make decisions based on extra-constitutional information.
