‘Fourteenth Amendment’-“Brief for the Appellant in Reed v. Reed (1971)"
Ginsburg argues, “The issue in this case is whether, as appellant contends, mandatory disqualification of a woman for appointment as an administrator, whenever a man “equally entitled to administer” applies for appointment, constitutes arbitrary and unequal treatment proscribed by the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution.” Disqualifying Sally Reed from being an administrator on the basis of her biological sex would be tantamount to an absolute violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Sally and Cecil should be treated equally when determining who should take over their late son’s estate.
“Suspect Classification”-“Brief for the Appellant in Reed v. Reed (1971)”
Ginsburg expounds, “Although the legislature may distinguish between individuals on the basis of their ability or need, it is presumptively impermissible to distinguish on the basis of congenital and unalterable biological traits of birth over which the individual has no control and for which he or she should not be penalized. Such conditions include not only race, a matter clearly within the “suspect classification” doctrine, but include as well the sex of the individual.” Biological traits should not be utilized to imperil individuals in society. Attributes categorized under ‘suspect classification’ could be exploited in such a way that they permit discrimination of individuals. It is imperative for a court to determine whether a factor falls under suspect classification before deciding on a case involving discrimination.
Gender-“Brief of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amicua Curiae, in Craig v. Boren (1976)”
Ginsburg argues,“ Just as drinking preferences and proclivities associated with a particular ethnic group or social class would be perceived as an unfair and insubstantial basis for a beverage sale or service prohibition direct to that group or class, so a gender-based classification should be recognized as an inappropriate, invidious means to the legislative end of rational regulation in the public interest…”
Basing laws on gender stereotypes encourages discrimination against the members of that gender. Discrimination cannot enhance public order, it perpetuates stereotypes that would trigger flawed notions about all members of that gender. For gender equality to thrive, laws should rise above stereotypical gender classifications.
Diversity-“Majority Opinion in United States v. Virginia (1996)”
Ginsburg agrees, “It is not disputed that diversity among public educational institutions can serve the public good. But Virginia has not shown that VMI was established, or has been maintained, with a view to…diversifying, by its categorical exclusion of women, educational opportunities within the Commonwealth.” Virginia argues that their approach of admitting males only contributes “to diversity in educational approaches.” Diversity and inclusion of women in educational institutions should not be mutually exclusive. Women’s opportunities should not be sacrificed in the name of diversity. Perhaps, Virginia Military Institute should have fostered the diversity by setting up another school for the females.
Women-“Brief for the Appellant in Reed v. Reed (1971)
Ginsburg , in her ruling, strives to illustrate that discrimination of women is unconstitutional: “The very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” She cites the Clause to emphasize that the women deserve all the protection that is outlined in the clause. Ginsburg's focus on human rights makes her an informed, feminist judge who utilizes her position to foster gender equality and women's dignity.
