Although there is an element of deduction, Ruth's argument in court is so powerful that I cry.
Radical social change!
When I was in law school, there was no women's bathroom, It is amazing to me now that we never complained. Not because we were timid, we were just astounded to be in law school at all.
According to my own example, society is actually making progress all the time. You can't imagine how far behind you were before. How backward we are now, people in the future will certainly not be able to imagine.
A hundred years ago, Myra Bradwell wanted to be a lawyer. She had fulfilled the requirements for the lllinois bar but she was not allowed to P-practice because she was a woman. An injustice she asked the Supreme Court to correct. Lllinon's was to confident of victory, they did not even send a lawyer to argue their side. They were right, she lost. That was the first time someone went to court to challenge his or her prescribed gender role. A hundred years ago.
Radical social change.
65years ago, when women in Oregon wanted to work overtime and make more money as men could, the court looked to the precedent in Bradwell and said no. So then there were two precedents. Then three, then four, and so on. And you can draw a direct line from Myra Bradwell to Gwendolyn Hoyt, told then 10 years ago, she was not entitled to a jury of her peers. That is the legacy the government asks you to uphold today. You are being urged to protect the culture and traditions and morality of an America that no longer exists.
A generation ago, my students would have been arrested for indecency for wearing the clothes that they do. Years ago I would not have the right to stand before you. There are 178 laws that differentiate on the basis of sex . Count them. The government did the favor of compiling them for you and while you are at it. I urge you to read them. They are abstacles to our children's aspirations.
It is only natural to refute the other party's lawyer about the status quo, no, it is the accumulation of mistakes one by one.
You are asking us to overturn a century of precedent?
I am asking you to set a new precedent as courts have done before when the law is outdated.
Calm down, judge, I'm not asking you to subvert history, and you're too self-sufficient, I'm asking you to create a new one because the law is outdated.
But in those cases, the courts had a clear constitutional handle. The world women dose not appear even in the US Constitution.
Not does the word freedom, your honor.
Go on.....
Professor Ginsburg.
The principal purpose of Section 214 is not to protect women not to discriminate against men. It is to provide caregivers the opportunity to work out side the home. Therefore as the Supreme Court did in Levy V Louisiana, this court should fix the law most in line with the legislate intent. Extend the deduction to never married men. Help all caregivers equally.
Reiterate the purpose of the article in the case
Charles Moritz was well-raised to be the sort of man we should all hope our sons will become Charlie deserves our admiration.
Not only was he taken on the burden of caring for his very strong willed mother, when no one would expect it of him but in doing so, he has surpassed the limitations the rest of us and our laws seek to force upon him.
Responding to the opposing attorney's character-shaming response to the client
We are not asking you to change the country, that is already happened without any courts' permission. We are asking you to protect the right of the country to change.
We just ask you to guard the right of this country to move forward.
Our sons and daughters are barred by law from opportunities based on assumptions about their abilities. How will they never disprove these assumptions if laws like Section 214 are allowed to stand?
We all must take these laws on, one by one, for as long as it takes, for their sakes, you have the power to set the precedent, that will get us started.
You can right this wrong.
We cannot allow this to continue, we want to create a better future for the next generation. Fix mistakes.
We rest our case on our briefs and argument and ask that you reverse the tax court's decision.
Complaint completed.
Another touching point is that in the movie, Marty's cancer survival rate is only 5%, Ruth "we are never giving up. Keep working. Keep studying. Jane will have her father. And you will be a lawyer. I m spending my life with you, Martin Ginsberg”
Now I am trapped in a foreign country due to the epidemic. I am worried and unwilling to study every day. The whole pace of life feels disrupted. I really should learn from Ruth.
This woman is really strong inside. Full of fighting spirit and wisdom.
And Marty said when comforting her daughter:
"Grandma Celia died when Mom was about your age. But right up to her dying breath, they would read together, and debate ideas, and she d make mom question everything. Jane Mom isn't bullying you. She doesn't want you to feel small. She wants to share what her mother taught her. That s how she shows her heart.”
RBG became one of the justices in 1993, the year I was born.
Thank you for ushering in a new era for my generation.
View more about On the Basis of Sex reviews
