Read on Twitter
If the reason you hate RBG is because of Roe v. Wade, I will summarize 5 cases she argued successfully to the SCOTUS before she became a sitting justice.
She may not have gotten it right all the time but she did a great deal to protect the civil liberties of BOTH genders
She may not have gotten it right all the time but she did a great deal to protect the civil liberties of BOTH genders
Duren v Missouri
1978
Does Jackson County’s practice of automatically exempting women from jury duty on request violate the 6th and 14th Amendment guarantees to a trial by a jury chosen from a fair cross section of the community?
1978
Does Jackson County’s practice of automatically exempting women from jury duty on request violate the 6th and 14th Amendment guarantees to a trial by a jury chosen from a fair cross section of the community?
Duren v Missouri
1978
RBG argued that it was a violation of 2 Constitutional Amendments and as a result of her victory women are no longer excluded from serving on juries.
1978
RBG argued that it was a violation of 2 Constitutional Amendments and as a result of her victory women are no longer excluded from serving on juries.
Califano v Goldfarb
1976
Do the gender-based requirements for survivor's benefits in Section 402 violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
1976
Do the gender-based requirements for survivor's benefits in Section 402 violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Califano v Goldfarb
1976
Goldfarb was a widower who applied for survivor's benefits under the Social Security Act. Even though his late wife had paid Social Security taxes for 25 years, his application was denied.
1976
Goldfarb was a widower who applied for survivor's benefits under the Social Security Act. Even though his late wife had paid Social Security taxes for 25 years, his application was denied.
Califano v Goldfarb
1974
In order for Califano to qualify for his wife's benefits, he had to have been receiving half of his support from her at the time of her death, according to Sec 402.
Sec 402 did NOT make the same requirement of women whose husband's had recently died.
1974
In order for Califano to qualify for his wife's benefits, he had to have been receiving half of his support from her at the time of her death, according to Sec 402.
Sec 402 did NOT make the same requirement of women whose husband's had recently died.
Califano v Goldfarb
1974
RBG argued this was an unfairly levied requirement of men that violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
She succeeded, now both genders can collect SSA benefits from a deceased spouse without having to jump through extra hoops.
1974
RBG argued this was an unfairly levied requirement of men that violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
She succeeded, now both genders can collect SSA benefits from a deceased spouse without having to jump through extra hoops.
Weinberger v Wiesenfeld
1974
Does the gender based distinction in Social Security benefits violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
1974
Does the gender based distinction in Social Security benefits violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Weinberger v Wiesenfeld
1974
Weinberger's wife died in childbirth and her income from being a teacher was their principal source of income. He filed for benefits on behalf of himself and his newborn son. His claim was denied but his son was deemed eligible.
1974
Weinberger's wife died in childbirth and her income from being a teacher was their principal source of income. He filed for benefits on behalf of himself and his newborn son. His claim was denied but his son was deemed eligible.
Weinberger v Wiesenfeld
1974
At the time, benefits for a surviving wife were available to her and the children of her deceased husband. But benefits were not given to a husband who survived his wife, only to their children.
1974
At the time, benefits for a surviving wife were available to her and the children of her deceased husband. But benefits were not given to a husband who survived his wife, only to their children.
Weinberger v Wiesenfeld
1974
Weinberger claimed the section of code unfairly discriminated on the basis of sex. RBG argued his case, leading SCOTUS to issue the majority opinion that the government couldn't withhold benefits simply due to the gender of a surviving parent.
1974
Weinberger claimed the section of code unfairly discriminated on the basis of sex. RBG argued his case, leading SCOTUS to issue the majority opinion that the government couldn't withhold benefits simply due to the gender of a surviving parent.
Kahn v Shevin
1973
Does the Florida statute that only provides property tax exemptions to widows violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
1973
Does the Florida statute that only provides property tax exemptions to widows violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Kahn v Shevin
1973
Since 1941, Florida has granted a $500 property tax exemption for widows but no similar exemption for widowers. Widower Mel Kahn applied to the Dade County Tax Assessor’s Office for the property tax exemption, which was denied.
1973
Since 1941, Florida has granted a $500 property tax exemption for widows but no similar exemption for widowers. Widower Mel Kahn applied to the Dade County Tax Assessor’s Office for the property tax exemption, which was denied.
Kahn v Shevin
1973
SCOTUS majority opinion was that due to many widows entering the job market for the first time or after a significant absence the exemption was justified. This was one of the few times RBG did not prevail in her arguments for fair treatment of both genders.
1973
SCOTUS majority opinion was that due to many widows entering the job market for the first time or after a significant absence the exemption was justified. This was one of the few times RBG did not prevail in her arguments for fair treatment of both genders.
Frontiero v Richardson
1973
Did a federal law, requiring different qualification criteria for male and female military spousal dependency, unconstitutionally discriminate against women thereby violating the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause?
1973
Did a federal law, requiring different qualification criteria for male and female military spousal dependency, unconstitutionally discriminate against women thereby violating the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause?
Frontiero v Richardson
1973
A lieutenant in the USAF, sought a dependent's allowance for her husband. Federal law provided that wives of members of the military automatically became dependents but husbands of female members of the military, were not accepted as dependents...
1973
A lieutenant in the USAF, sought a dependent's allowance for her husband. Federal law provided that wives of members of the military automatically became dependents but husbands of female members of the military, were not accepted as dependents...
Frontiero v Richardson
1973
...unless they were dependent on their wives for over one-half of their support.
RBG representing the ACLU as amicus curiae was permitted to argue on Frontiero's behalf.
1973
...unless they were dependent on their wives for over one-half of their support.
RBG representing the ACLU as amicus curiae was permitted to argue on Frontiero's behalf.
Frontiero v Richardson
1973
The decision informed the military establishment that in terms of pay, benefits, and allowances it could not discriminate based on gender. The Court did not issue a decision that required the military to prove in court it's reasons for excluding...
1973
The decision informed the military establishment that in terms of pay, benefits, and allowances it could not discriminate based on gender. The Court did not issue a decision that required the military to prove in court it's reasons for excluding...
....women from combat positions.
I can't read the summaries of these cases and come to any other conclusion than she was rightfully determined to see women and men treated fairly under the provisions set forth in the Constitution. That should be a fact that *everyone* can agree with.
