Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Government Reform
Supreme Court Justice (nominated by Pres. Clinton 1993)
Constitution, and 4th amendment, must change over time
"What happens when a helicopter is above your house searching for marijuana, without actually searching the home?" Ginsburg asked her audience at Northwestern Law School. "The Fourth Amendment has to apply to new circumstances.
The Constitution is the oldest in the world, and the expectation was that it would govern us through the ages and through change in time."
Source: Speech at American Constitution Society
, Sep 22, 2009
Votes with liberal bloc against states’ rights
The nine court members can be divided into three general alliances, but all of the justices have crossed ideological lines. The three conservative justices and two of the swing justices usually support states’ rights [while the liberal bloc,
including Ginsburg, do not].
Ginsburg is considered liberal but has voted with the conservative wing, most notably in a dissenting opinion that states have broad powers to limit jury awards.
Source: Reuters article in Boston Globe, p. A45
, Dec 1, 2000
Public campaign finance can fund based on opponent spending.
Justice Ginsburg joined the dissent on AZ FREEDOM CLUB PAC v. BENNETT on Jun 27, 2011:
An Arizona public campaign financing law allowed a person who agreed to the restrictions of a publicly financed campaign to receive an initial allotment from the state. That initial allotment was increased when the spending of a privately financed opponent together with the spending of any independent group exceeded that initial allotment. The public funds to match opponent expenditures topped out at two times the initial allotment.
HELD: Delivered by Roberts; joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas & AlitoArizona's public financing law places a burden on privately financed candidates. If privately financed candidates spend money above a certain level, they necessarily entitle their publicly financed opponents to greater funding. Their First Amendment right to free speech in a political matter--which includes spending money on their campaigns--is inhibited. Independent groups do not qualify for public financing at all, but their spending still may lead to a funding
increase for the candidates the independent groups oppose. Leveling the playing is not a compelling state interest justifying a burden on a First Amendment right, nor is combating corruption. Arizona would be free to give the maximum amount to all public candidates, but that does not justify inhibiting the free speech of candidates and independent groups.
DISSENT: Kagan dissents; joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and SotomayorThe First Amendment's core purpose is to foster a political system full of robust discussion and debate. Arizona's public campaign finance did not restrict speech, it increased speech through public subsidy with the goal of decreasing the corruption of both quid pro quo campaign payments made in exchange for official acts or an office seeker feeling beholden to his great financial supporters. Any burden on free speech, the burden could hardly be more substantial than what the Court announces would be legal: a larger, up-front allotment to a public candida
Source: Supreme Court case 11-AZ-PAC argued on Mar 28, 2011
Page last updated: Jul 11, 2013