The Irony of “Legislative and Judicial Remedies”-“Brief for the Appellant in Reed v. Reed (1971)”
Ginsburg elucidates, “The experience of trying to root out racial discrimination in the United States has demonstrated that even when the arsenal of legislative and judicial remedies is well stocked, social and cultural institutions shaped by centuries of law-sanctioned bias do not crumble under the weight of legal pronouncements proscribing discrimination.” The remedies would be anticipated to expedite and guarantee the elimination of racial discrimination in America. Prohibition of discrimination , in law, is not sufficient to totally eradicate it. Accordingly, classifying sex under ‘suspect classification’ would not result in the absolute disintegration of sexism in the society. Social-cultural factors make it difficult for judicial remedies to collapse all forms of discrimination in the society.
The Irony of “protective and beneficial laws”-“Brief for the Appellant in Reed v. Reed (1971)”
Ginsburg elaborates, "Laws which disable women from full participation in the political, business and economic arenas are often characterized as "protective" and beneficial. Those same laws applied to racial or ethnic minorities would readily be recognized as invidious and impermissible." Beneficial laws would empower instead of disabling women. Laws can be protective, if they shield women from discrimination. Laws should be fair to all groups regardless of their genders , races or status as minority.
“Oklahoma’s 3.2 beer sex/age differential”-“Brief of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amicus Curiae, in Craig v. Boren (1976)”
Ginsburg expounds, “On the surface, Oklahoma’s 3.2 beer sex/age differential may appear to accord young women a liberty withheld from young men. Upon deeper inspection, the gender line drawn by Oklahoma is revealed as a manifestation of traditional attitude about the expected behaviour of males and females, part of the myriad signals and messages that daily underscore the notion of men as society’s active members, women as men’s quiescent companions.” Women would be anticipated to celebrate and endorse the law because it offers them more freedom than men when it comes to the purchase of alcohol. However, the freedom is ascribed to a flawed notion that depicts women as dormant society members. The law exhibits subtle sexist notions regarding women; thus, it is not absolutely favorable to the females.
“VMI’s Implementing Methodology”-“Majority Opinion in United States v. Virginia (1996)”
Ginsburg observes, “Neither the goal of producing citizen soldiers nor VMI’s implementing methodology is inherently unsuitable to women. And the schools’ impressive record in producing leaders has made admission desirable to some women. Nevertheless, Virginia has elected to preserve exclusively for men the advantages and opportunities a VMI education affords.” Women would bear with the methodology applied at VMI. The ironic policy that excludes them from admission at the intuition is founded on the unsound assumption concerning women's inferiority that would bar them from excelling at the institution. The VMI does not demonstrate how women would not be effective leaders after going through the institution.
“The District Court’s Ruling”-“Majority Opinion in United States v. Virginia (1996)”
Ginsburg expounds, “In 1990, prompted by a complaint file with the Attorney General by a female high school student seeking admission to VMI, the United States sued the Commonwealth of Virginia and VMI, alleging that VMI’s exclusively male admission policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment…The District Court ruled in favour of VMI, however, and rejected the equal protection challenge pressed by the United States.” The District Court’s ruling does not consider the Fourteenth Amendment which guarantees equal protection for the female student. Perhaps, if it were a male student who had been denied admission after qualifying, the District Court would have issued a favorable ruling. The bench at the District Court’s bench that determines the student’s case demonstrates that a faulty, and sexist interpretation of the constitution can perpetuate injustice instead of according equal treatment and rights to all.
