Kumpuris Lecture featuring the Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 2019
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s conversation with Nina Totenberg in North Little Rock, 2019.
Watch the video from 54:00-58:38
Excerpt Transcript
Totenberg:
For those of you that have not seen RPG or the biopic On the Basis of Sex, I recommend both, they provide a pretty good view of your career prior to becoming a judge. And then later, a Supreme Court Justice. But what used to strike me when I covered your arguments was how you had tailored your arguments. You had an all-male Supreme Court and you tailored your gender discrimination cases. The arguments in those cases to appeal to different justices. In different ways, and you often have male plaintiffs. And one of those male plaintiffs was Stephen Weisenfeld, whose wife died in childbirth and who was denied Social Security benefits for his remaining his child who survived, even though his wife was the principal breadwinner, and you won. But there were basically 3 arguments that succeeded, and I wanted you to talk about each. How each group of justices sided.
Ginsburg:
First, let me tell the audience how Stephen Weisenfeld came to my attention. He had written a letter to the editor to his local paper in Edison, NJ. And he said, I’ve been hearing a lot these days about women’s lib. Let me tell you my story. My wife died of an embolism just after our son was born. And I knew that there were benefits available to a sole surviving parent who had a young child to take care of so I went to the Social Security Office to claim those benefits. And I was told, “We’re very sorry, Mr. Weisenfeld, these are survivor benefits not available to fathers. Now it was obvious to me that although the plaintiff was a man, the discrimination was against the woman as wage earner.
She paid the same Social Security taxes that a man would pay. But, her contributions did not net for her family the same protection. So, I think it was the dominant view of the court that this was really discrimination against the woman as a wage earner. A few of the justices said no. It’s discrimination against the male as parent. He doesn’t have the option to personally care for his child. Under Social Security, you could earn a certain amount and still get the Social Security benefits. If you earned over the limit the benefits would reduce dollar for dollar. And why is it all that figured out? I can do part time work, earn a certain amount and keep those benefits. So some of the justices said it’s obvious that it’s discrimination against the male as parent. He has no choice but to work full time, doesn’t have the option to care personally for his newborn. And then it was one who later became my chief. Then Justice Renquist, who said it’s totally arbitrary from the point of view of the baby. Why should the baby have the opportunity for the care of a sole surviving parent? Only if that parent is female and not. If the parent is male, so it was this wonderful illustration of how gender based discrimination hurts everyone, it hurts women, it hurts men, and children.
Questions
Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued this case as a lawyer.
What did she think was unfair?
How did the Supreme Court justices rule? Why?