Ing’s Street Art, My Little Red Shoes, Elephant Bath, In the Midst of Troubles, I Seek Peace, and U.S. Supreme Court Justices on Eviction Part 2

Ing’s Street Art, “My Little Red Shoes”, “Elephant Bath”, “In the Midst of Troubles, I Seek Peace”, and “U.S. Supreme Court Justices on Eviction”

Halsey Street, Newark, New Jersey, USA

Part 2

 In the Midst of troubles, I Seek Peace

 

 In the midst of trouble

Global warming

Causes the fires in California and elsewhere

 

The weather turns more violence

Hurricane Ida caused destruction in Haiti

Louisiana and other places in its path to the North East

 

Strong winds, rain and floods

Whole cities had to evacuate

Millions homeless caused by the nature

 

What causes nature to be violent?

Who causes Global warming?

 

Humans blame nature

Causing the destruction

 

No one can be blamed but ourselves

 

Let us start again

To care for Nature

for our lives now

And generations to come

  

Where can I Find Peace Street?

 

I got lost.

 

Where do you want to go?

 

I want to go to Peace Street

Where I can find my mother

Father and my family

 

I want to go to Peace Street

Where I am happy

To see a peaceful Village

 

I want to go to Peace Street

Where children have a joyful time

With parents and family

 

I want to go to Peace Street

Where children are not afraid

Or cry for food

And no place to stay

 

I want to go to Peace Street

where everyone is happy

No fighting

No disaster

 

I want to go to Peace Street

Where there are no weapons produced

And sold to kill each other

For profit and wealth

 

I want to go to Peace Street

Where there are no corrupt politicians

And greedy rich people who keep

Everything for themselves

Leaving non for the poor

 

I want to go to Peace Street

Where people are kind

And helpful to one another

 

I want to go to Peace Street

To see beautiful nature

With no pollution

Clean oceans

With all the creatures

Living happily

 

Can you direct me to Peace Street?

I got lost

I am hungry

Where are my mother, father,

my husband, my daughter, my grandsons

and the others in my family?

I miss them

I am lonely

 

Please help to direct me to Peace Street

My life is short

I am lost

Where I can find Peace Street on Earth

I woke up this morning.  I felt sad, thinking about my family and other unfortunate people.  Biden had a policy to deport Haitian people who suffered in their country.  Most immigrants want to have an opportunity to work for survival of their families.  It is cruel to send people back to suffer and die while politicians try to find a way to gain credit for their future election to office.


Ing-On Vibulbhan-Watts, Saturday, September 25, 2021

 

U.S. Supreme Court Justices on Eviction

 

Low-income people have difficulty to survive

Even to have enough money to buy food

 To feed themselves and their children

 

A few days ago, a report from the news media stated that

700,000 people in the US died from COVID-19

 

The epidemic of the virus may cause some people not to get jobs

Especially families that have children

No money to pay rent

 

Thanks to an eviction moratorium policy

From Biden’s administration

 Landlords were prevented from evicting families

 

This policy to help the poor

Is just a drop of water to quench the thirst

Of dying families

 

Now! Six Republican Supreme Court Justice Appointees

Declared that landlords can evict poor families

That cannot pay rent

 

Millions of poor families

With children are going to be homeless

 

In the midst of the COVID-19 epidemic

Powerful people receive

Benefits and salary from the tax payers of the country

 

These people use their power to cause the poor

Who cannot get jobs because the COVID-19 epidemic

To suffer even more than they were facing before

 

“Where is the justice?”

I want to ask these six Justices of the Supreme Court  

If it makes you happy to see children and their parents suffer?

These poor families who have difficulty to feed children and themselves

Now have no home to stay

 

Where is your humanity?

Where is your empathy toward the poor?

Where is your kindness for the poor?

Where is your morality toward these citizens?

We, the citizens of the country

Especially the unfortunate poor and homeless

 Who has no voice

Ask the Six Republican Appointed Justices of the Supreme Court

The above questions

 

What were you thinking when you made your decision?

You represent the Supreme Court of the land

 Are happy now that you have

Paid back the favor to billionaires that appointed you

To the Throne of Justice?

 

It is sad to see these humans

These so-called Supreme Court Justices walk the earth

 

“In the Midst of Troubles, I Seek Peace”

Where I can find Peace?

I could not control my tears for the evicted families

My heart is aching to hear such an order from this group of

United State Supreme Court Justices

 

Let me calm down

At least for my recording of the event

Let it be etched into history for future

Generations to learn

To cultivate the next generation

To be kind human beings

helping the unfortunate who

Suffer more than they

 

“In the Midst of Troubles, I Seek Peace”

I will calm myself

Get back to my garden

And continue doing my artwork

 

At least my minuscule contributions

Brings happiness to the others

 

Hearing people pass my little garden

And artwork saying

“The flowers are beautiful”

And commenting

“You changed your artwork.

I like the children in your painting”

 

“The painting is called, My Little Red Shoes”

I respond

  

Ing-On Vibulbhan-Watts, Saturday, October 2, 2021

 

 Artwork by Ing-On Vibulbhan-Watts, “My Little Red Shoes” in 1996. 

Daily Mail:

Supreme Court says letting the Biden administration keep the eviction moratorium in place could open the door to mandates for ‘free grocery delivery for the sick and vulnerable and free computers to let Americans work from home’

  • Conservatives on the Supreme Court said extending eviction moratoriums could lead to government mandates on ‘free grocery delivery and free computers’ 
  • ‘Could the CDC mandate free grocery delivery to the homes of the sick or vulnerable?’ the majority opinion reads from the six conservatives on the court
  • ‘Require manufacturers to provide free computers to enable people to work from home? Order telecommunications companies to provide free Internet?’
  • The Supreme Court voted 6-3 to block the eviction moratorium, allowing landlord to kick out renters who haven’t paid rent in the midst of the pandemic
  • Argued that preventing landlords from evicting tenants who breach their leases strips them of their ‘right to exclude’  
  • The six conservative justices elected to end the eviction freeze from the CDC and the three liberals justices voting it should stay
  • Said the CDC overextended its authority in imposing the moratorium 

By KATELYN CARALLE, U.S. POLITICAL REPORTER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM  and AP

PUBLISHED: 18:43 EDT, 30 August 2021 | UPDATED: 18:43 EDT, 30 August 2021

Conservatives on the Supreme Court said that allowing the eviction moratorium to continue could set a precedent for government mandated ‘free grocery delivery’ and ‘free internet’ for people to work from home.

‘Preventing [landlords] from evicting tenants who breach their leases intrudes on one of the most fundamental elements of property ownership—the right to exclude,’ the majority opinion reads from the Thursday decision.

The court’s decision will allow for landlords to evict tenants who have not paid rent in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic.

Questioned in the unsigned opinion from the six conservative justices was hypothetical situations for how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention could overreach its authority in the future, as they claim it did so in extending the moratorium.

‘Could the CDC, for example, mandate free grocery delivery to the homes of the sick or vulnerable?’ the majority opinion reads. ‘Require manufacturers to provide free computers to enable people to work from home? Order telecommunications companies to provide free high-speed Internet service to facilitate remote work?’

All this to say, the court feels that the CDC cannot decide for the sake of public health that other aspects of business can be impacted, like preventing landlords from collecting rent.

They also claim that congressional action is needed to extend the moratorium.

The Supreme Court elected to end the national eviction moratorium in a 6-3 vote on Thursday, claiming it would lead to a precedent of mandated ‘free grocery delivery for the sick’ or ‘free computers and internet’ to work from home

The decision again exhibited the power Republicans have with the court’s 6-3 conservative majority, which is now allowing evictions to resume across the U.S. as it blocks the Biden administration from continuing to enforce a temporary ban that was put in place because of the coronavirus pandemic.

The vote was split by party line with conservatives John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett voting to end the eviction moratorium, and liberals Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan voting to keep it.

The justices said in an unsigned opinion Thursday that the CDC, which reimplemented the moratorium on August 3, lacked the authority to do so under federal law without explicit congressional authorization.

‘It would be one thing if Congress had specifically authorized the action that the CDC has taken,’ the court wrote. ‘But that has not happened. Instead, the CDC has imposed a nationwide moratorium on evictions in reliance on a decades-old statute that authorizes it to implement measures like fumigation and pest extermination. It strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the CDC the sweeping authority that it asserts.’

Real estate groups in Georgia and Alabama had argued this point and told the high court that the moratorium caused property owners across the nation significant financial hardships, USA Today reports.

Property owners had to continue to pay expenses while not receiving payments from renters. They were also banned from evicting nightmare tenants, who were given free reign to make their neighbors’ lives a misery.

Court said the CDC did not have the power to extend the moratorium. Housing advocates protest on August 4 to allow the eviction moratorium to continue in New York

As of August 25, nearly 90 per cent of the federal funds meant to help landlords make up for the loss of funds had not been distributed, the U.S. Treasury Department said in a statement.

Roughly 3.5 million people in the United States said they faced eviction in the next two months, according to Census Bureau data from early August.

After the Thursday ruling, several progressive lawmakers pleaded with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to act with the ‘highest levels of urgency’ to combat evictions.

The lawmakers asked the leaders in a Friday letter to work to revive the national eviction moratorium after the Supreme Court ruled congressional action is needed.

‘Millions of people who are currently at risk for eviction, housing insecurity, or face becoming unhoused desperately look to their elected representatives to implement legislation that will put their health and safety first and save lives,’ the letter reads.

The effort was led by Representative Ayanna Pressley and signed on by more than 60 Democrats, including fellow ‘squad’ members Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Cori Bush.

Bush, who was once homeless before running for office, led protesters in sleeping outside the Capitol earlier this summer when the moratorium faced its end before the CDC expanded it.

The Supreme Court had originally allowed the eviction freeze to continue to July in a 5-4 vote, but Kavanaugh, who voted to keep it, indicated that he would vote against any further extension.

Roberts followed suit and voted against the moratorium with Kavanagh on Thursday.

In his dissenting opinion, Breyer asserted that the court should not end the moratorium on an expedited basis.

‘Applicants raise contested legal questions about an important federal statute on which the lower courts are split and on which this court has never actually spoken,’ Breyer wrote. ‘These questions call for considered decision making, informed by full briefing and argument. Their answers impact the health of millions.’

The national eviction freeze was set in place at the start of the pandemic and continued on until July, when the Supreme Court previously upheld it in a 5-4 vote

The Biden administration’s extension of the eviction moratorium was heralded by members the ‘the Squad,’ including U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who had celebrated the announcement earlier this month.

She and fellow Democratic congress woman Cori Bush had demonstrated outside the Capitol in protest of the moratorium’s original deadline at the start of August.

Bush was hailed as a key figure who pushed Biden and his administration to extend the deadline after five continuous days of protest, tweeting about her accomplishment.

‘Squad’ member Ilhan Omar also acknowledged Bush’s efforts in spearheading the moratorium extension, The Hill reported.

U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, a fellow democrat from California who sponsored a House bill to extend the eviction freeze, also thanked Biden ‘from the bottom of my heart and on behalf of millions of renters.

‘This extension of the moratorium is the lifeline that millions of families have been waiting for. From the very beginning of this pandemic, it was clear that eviction moratoriums not only kept people housed, but also saved lives,’ Waters said in a statement.

A group of Democratic lawmakers wrote a letter to Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer urging them to act congressionally to extend the moratorium after the Supreme Court said the CDC overreached 

This was the second high court loss for the administration this week at the hands of the court’s conservative majority.

On Tuesday, the court effectively allowed the reinstatement of a Trump-era policy forcing asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for their hearings.

The new administration had tried to end the Remain in Mexico program, as it is informally known.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court voted the same way to strike down part of New York’s eviction moratorium.

In the same 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled against allowing COVID-19 hardships to stand as a reason to ban landlords from kicking out tenants. The state’s rules allowed renters to simply state they’d suffered financial hardship and avoid eviction without providing any evidence.

New Yorkers renting apartments will also now no longer be able to stay in homes they’ve stopped paying rent on by claiming that doing so would endanger their health.

The pause on evictions expires at the end of August, meaning people could start getting kicked out of their apartments by the end of this month.

Incoming Governor Kathy Hochul criticized Thursday’s ruling, saying that she and state lawmakers would work to try and reinforce the moratorium.

Both parts of the law that have been cut were enacted when COVID decimated many of New York’s biggest industries – including hospitality and travel – leaving people who worked in them fearful of being made homeless.

The state has since largely reopened, and its economy appears to be on the path to recovery.

Demonstrators protesting evictions are arrested by NYPD

Eviction moratorium finally set to expire 18 months after it was created amid COVID first wave

The national eviction moratorium was put in place last September by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide aid for those struggling from the economic impacts of the coronavirus pandemic in March 2020.

The moratorium was supposed to end in December, but Congress voted to extend it until January 2021.

The Biden administration then pushed the deadline further, once in January and then again in March.

Although the moratorium was set to expire at the end of July, the spread of the delta variant and summer spikes in COVID-19 cases continued to leave millions vulnerable.

Data showed that in July, roughly 3.6 million people would face evictions by September if the moratorium was halted, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey.

The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision to allow the deadline to extend one final time until the end of July.

The pressure came as landlords and property owners grieved over the loss of income rent while the federal aid set aside for them trickled in at a snail’s pace.

Of the $47 billion in rental assistance that was supposed to go to help tenants pay off months of rent, only about 10% has been distributed as of Aug. 25.

Some states like New York have distributed almost nothing, while several have only approved a few million dollars.

After weeks of protests to extend the eviction moratorium were held at the Capitol, the Biden administration extended the deadline one more time into August.

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who voted to extend the deadline to July, had warned that he would switch his vote if the administration tried extending it again.

True to his word, Kavanaugh voted against the order on August 26, with Chief Justice John Roberts following suit.

The Supreme Court ultimately banned the eviction moratorium in a 6-3 decision.

For more information, please view the following link:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9941319/Supreme-Court-says-extending-eviction-moratorium-open-door-free-grocery-delivery.html

Read more:

Share or comment on this article:

Supreme Court says extending eviction moratorium could open the door to ‘free grocery delivery’

In dissent, Justice Breyer wrote that “the public interest is not favored by the spread of disease or a court’s second-guessing of the C.D.C.’s judgment.”

The Biden administration and other moratorium proponents predicted that the decision would set off a wave of dire consequences.

“As a result of this ruling, families will face the painful impact of evictions, and communities across the country will face greater risk of exposure to Covid-19,” Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said in a statement.

The ruling also renewed pressure on congressional Democrats to try to extend the freeze over the opposition of Republicans.

“Tonight, the Supreme Court failed to protect the 11 million households across our country from violent eviction in the middle of a deadly global pandemic,” said Representative Cori Bush, a Missouri Democrat who slept on the steps of the Capitol this month to protest the expiration of the previous moratorium. “We already know who is going to bear the brunt of this disastrous decision: Black and brown communities, and especially Black women.”

But landlords, who have said the moratoriums saddled them with billions of dollars in debt, hailed the move.

“The government must move past failed policies and begin to seriously address the nation’s debt tsunami, which is crippling both renters and housing providers alike,” said Bob Pinnegar, the president of the National Apartment Association, a trade association representing large landlords.

It will most likely take a while for the backlog of eviction cases in many states to result in the displacement of renters. But tenant groups in the South, where fast-track evictions are common, are bracing for the worst.

In recent days, Mr. Biden’s team has been mapping out strategies to deal with the likely loss of the moratorium, with a plan to focus its efforts on a handful of states — including South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia and Ohio — that have large backlogs of unpaid rent and few statewide protections for tenants.

The administration had at first concluded that a Supreme Court ruling in June had effectively forbidden it from imposing a new moratorium after an earlier one expired at the end of July. While the administration had prevailed in that ruling by a 5-to-4 vote, one member of the majority, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, wrote that he believed the moratorium to be unlawful and that he had cast his vote to temporarily sustain it only to allow an orderly transition. He would not support a further extension without “clear and specific congressional authorization (via new legislation),” he wrote.

Congress did not act. But after political pressure from Democrats, a surge in the pandemic and new consideration of the legal issues, the administration on Aug. 3 issued the moratorium that was the subject of the new ruling.

The administration’s legal maneuvering might have failed, but it bought some time for tenants threatened with eviction. In unusually candid remarks this month, President Biden said that was part of his calculus in deciding to proceed with the new moratorium, which was set to expire Oct. 3.

Congress declared a moratorium on evictions at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, but it lapsed in July 2020. The C.D.C. then issued a series of its own moratoriums, saying that they were justified by the need to address the pandemic and authorized by a 1944 law. People unable to pay rent, the agency said, should not be forced to crowd in with relatives or seek refuge in homeless shelters, spreading the virus.

The last moratorium — which was put in place by the C.D.C. in September and expired on July 31 after being extended several times by Congress and Mr. Biden — was effective at achieving its goal, reducing by about half the number of eviction cases that normally would have been filed since last fall, according to an analysis of filings by the Eviction Lab at Princeton University.

The challengers in the current case — landlords, real estate companies and trade associations led by the Alabama Association of Realtors — argued that the moratorium was not authorized by the law the agency relied on, the Public Health Service Act of 1944.

That law, the challengers wrote, was concerned with quarantines and inspections to stop the spread of disease and did not bestow on the agency “the unqualified power to take any measure imaginable to stop the spread of communicable disease — whether eviction moratoria, worship limits, nationwide lockdowns, school closures or vaccine mandates.”

What to Know About the Supreme Court Term

A blockbuster term begins. The Supreme Court, now dominated by six Republican appointees, returns to the bench to start a momentous term this fall in which it will consider eliminating the constitutional right to abortion and vastly expanding gun rights.

The big abortion case. The court seems poised to use a challenge to a Mississippi law that bars most abortions after 15 weeks to undermine and perhaps overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. The ruling could effectively end legal abortion access for those living in much of the South and Midwest.

A major decision on guns. The court will also consider the constitutionality of a longstanding New York law that imposes strict limits on carrying guns outside the home. The court has not issued a major Second Amendment ruling in more than a decade.

A test for Chief Justice Roberts. The highly charged docket will test the leadership of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who lost his position at the court’s ideological center with the arrival last fall of Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

A drop in public support. Chief Justice Roberts now leads a court increasingly associated with partisanship. Recent polls show the court is suffering a distinct drop in public support following a spate of unusual late-night summer rulings in politically charged cases.

The C.D.C. responded that the moratorium was authorized by the 1944 law. Evictions would accelerate the spread of the coronavirus, the agency said, by forcing people “to move, often into close quarters in new shared housing settings with friends or family, or congregate settings such as homeless shelters.”

The moratorium, the administration told the justices, was broadly similar to quarantine. “It would be strange to hold that the government may combat infection by prohibiting the tenant from leaving his home,” its brief said, “but not by prohibiting the landlord from throwing him out.”

The case was complicated by congressional action in December, when lawmakers briefly extended the C.D.C.’s moratorium through the end of January in an appropriations measure. When Congress took no further action, the agency again imposed moratoriums under the 1944 law.

In its Supreme Court brief, the government argued that it was significant that Congress had embraced the agency’s action, if only briefly.

The central legal question in the case was whether the agency was entitled to act on its own. In June, with the earlier moratorium about to expire, the court voted 5 to 4 in favor of the administration, allowing that measure to stand.

But that victory was distinctly provisional. Justice Kavanaugh, who voted with the majority, wrote that he had cast his vote reluctantly and had taken account of the then-impending expiration of the earlier moratorium.

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention exceeded its existing statutory authority by issuing a nationwide eviction moratorium,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “Because the C.D.C. plans to end the moratorium in only a few weeks, on July 31, and because those few weeks will allow for additional and more orderly distribution of the congressionally appropriated rental assistance funds, I vote at this time to deny the application” that had been filed by the challengers.

The other members of the court did not give reasons for their votes in the June ruling. But four of them — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — voted to lift the earlier moratorium. Taken together with Justice Kavanaugh’s statement, that distinctly suggested that a majority of the justices would not look favorably on another extension unless it came from Congress.

The Biden administration initially seemed to share that understanding, urging Congress to act and saying it did not have the unilateral power to impose a further moratorium through executive action. When Congress failed to enact legislation addressing the issue, the moratorium expired.

Under pressure from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats and wary of the rise of the Delta variant, the administration reversed course a few days later.

The new moratorium was not identical to the earlier one, which had applied nationwide. It was instead tailored to counties where Covid-19 was strongest, a category that currently covers some 90 percent of counties in the United States.

Mr. Biden was frank in discussing his reasoning, saying the new measure faced long odds but would buy tenants some time.

“The bulk of the constitutional scholarship says that it’s not likely to pass constitutional muster,” he said on Aug. 3. “But there are several key scholars who think that it may — and it’s worth the effort.”

Many states and localities, including New York and California, have extended their own moratoriums, providing another layer of protection for some renters. In some places, judges, aware of the potential for large numbers of people to be put out on the street even as the pandemic intensifies again, have said they would slow-walk cases and make greater use of eviction diversion programs.

Evictions, the Pandemic and the Courts

As Democrats Seethed, White House Struggled to Contain Eviction Fallout

Aug. 7, 2021

The Biden administration issues a new eviction moratorium as the virus surges.

Aug. 3, 2021

Federal Judge Strikes Down Moratorium on Evicting Renters

May 5, 2021

Adam Liptak covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law for 14 years before joining The Times in 2002. @adamliptak • Facebook

A version of this article appears in print on Aug. 27, 2021, Section A, Page 15 of the New York edition with the headline: Justices End Biden’s Eviction Moratorium, Leaving Thousands at Risk. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Boston, MA – August 12: Homes for All Massachusetts hosted a rally outside the State House in Boston on August 12, 2021 to voice support for a bill (H 1434 / S 891) up for a hearing later in the day that would temporarily pause evictions and foreclosures for 12 months following the end of the state of emergency. (Photo by Jonathan Wiggs/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

Tenants rights groups block the north entrance to the Los Angeles County Superior Courthouse in protest of the coming mass evictions if Gov. Gavin Newsom does not replace the Judicial Council’s eviction moratorium Rule 1 and if AB 1436 is not passed on Friday, August 21, 2020. (Photo by Drew A. Kelley, Contributing Photographer)

Tenants’ right advocates march down the Alameda to the offices of the California Apartment Association in San Jose, Calif., Thursday, April 6, 2017. They are protesting against no-cause evictions, which allows landlords to evict tenants in retaliation without giving a reason, displacing families and destabilizing communities. (Patrick Tehan/Bay Area News Group)U.S. Supreme Court on Eviction

On the eviction moratorium, the Supreme Court turns the law on its head | Opinion

Published: Oct. 04, 2021, 5:15 p.m.

Patrick Hill, an author and associate professor at Rutgers University, says that since judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court is based on an impoverished understanding of the law, its thoroughly confused decision against the eviction moratorium is not surprising. (AP Photo/Brittainy Newman, File)AP

By Star-Ledger Guest Columnist

By T. Patrick Hill

When the U.S. Supreme Court, on Aug. 26, ruled against President Biden’s extension of the moratorium on evictions, it sacrificed the safety and quite possibly the lives of hundreds of Americans to a legal ideology known as legal positivism or the understanding of law as justified simply because it is law, no matter its consequences.

In an eight-page unsigned decision, made with the concurrence of the six conservative justices and the dissent of the three liberal justices, the Court concluded that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) which is responsible nationally for the public’s health, had exceeded its statutory authority by issuing the moratorium.

The statute, the Court correctly notes, is the 1944 Public Health Service Act which authorizes the Health and Human Services secretary (HHS) to “make and enforce such regulations as in his (sic) judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases … from one State or possession into any other State or possession.” Subsequently, this authority was placed in the hands of the CDC.

But from this point, the Court’s reading of the statute goes from bad to worse. Inexplicably, the statute appears to be suspect because, since enactment, it has rarely been used, and certainly not used to justify an eviction moratorium. Are we to conclude from this that the Court considers rarely invoked statutes as something less than law? But even when invoked, the statute has been confined, the Court insists, to measures like quarantining infected individuals, for example. But why should that logically justify the inference that an eviction moratorium exceeds the purposes of the statute?

And just because the statute has specifically included measures like fumigation, disinfection and pest extermination, that cannot be thought logically to mean it has specifically excluded other measures, such as an eviction moratorium. If the statute authorizes something as extreme as quarantining infected individuals in the interests of the public’s safety, why is it, as the Court puts it, a stretch to think an eviction moratorium would also be authorized?

Like any legislation, the statute may be thought to acknowledge that since we may not know, at any particular moment, everything there is to be known about controlling infectious disease, it is prudent to provide reasonably broadly for that inevitable moment when an infectious disease presents itself in radically unprecedented features.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in more than 701,000 deaths in the U.S. so far. Yet, what is a major concern for the Court in its decision? The moratorium, it emphasizes, encroaches on “an area that is the particular domain of state law: the landlord-tenant relationship,” adding that earlier decisions of the Court have insisted on exceedingly clear language when congressional legislation might change the balance between state and federal power, in particular, governmental power over private property.

It is surely curious how, for the Court, the language of the 1944 statute is not sufficiently clear that it might be thought to include an eviction moratorium, but it is indeed sufficiently clear to exclude it. More curious is how, in the estimation of the Court, measures to control a raging pandemic, that is no respecter of state borders, are to play second fiddle to a narrow state-based interest.

Bottom of Form

The best that the Court can bring itself to acknowledge how indisputable the strong interest of the American public is in resisting the spreading threat of COVID-19, but not so strong as to justifiably override the private property interests that make up the landlord-tenant relationship. These are the calculations of justices, like Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who believe so much in what they do but understand so little of what that is, and, as a consequence, bring down upon our heads a perfect storm of irrationality that undermines the very essence of law and its purpose in society.

There can be no clearer demonstration of this than the Court’s declaration, upon closing its argument, that “… our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends.” With what understanding of the law can it be said that to act, simply as one should, to protect human life from disease and even death is to act unlawfully? That can be only when the law is understood as a law unto itself, as self-justifying, and in no way accountable for its justification to ethics, from which all human law is ultimately derived.

Since judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court is based on this impoverished understanding of the law, its thoroughly confused decision against the eviction moratorium is not surprising. Nevertheless, how mistaken to think that acting for the good of the public is to act unlawfully when actually it is to act ethically and must therefore be to act lawfully.

  1. Patrick Hill is an associate professor at Rutgers University and the author of the book, No Place for Ethics:Judicial Review, Legal Positivism and the Supreme Court of the United States.

Our journalism needs your support. Please subscribe today to NJ.com.

For more information please visit the  following link:

https://www.nj.com/opinion/2021/10/on-the-eviction-moratorium-the-supreme-court-turns-the-law-on-its-head-opinion.html

U.S. Supreme Court ends Biden’s Covid-19 eviction moratorium

Aug 27, 2021  Yahoo Finance

#EvictionMoratorium #moratoriumeviction #Biden Yahoo Finance’s Dani Romero reports on the U.S. Supreme Court blocking the Biden administration’s eviction moratorium. Watch the 2021 Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholders Meeting on YouTube: https://youtu.be/gx-OzwHpM9k Subscribe to Yahoo Finance: https://yhoo.it/2fGu5Bb About Yahoo Finance: At Yahoo Finance, you get free stock quotes, up-to-date news, portfolio management resources, international market data, social interaction and mortgage rates that help you manage your financial life. Yahoo Finance Plus: With a subscription to Yahoo Finance Plus get the tools you need to invest with confidence. Discover new opportunities with expert research and investment ideas backed by technical and fundamental analysis. Optimize your trades with advanced portfolio insights, fundamental analysis, enhanced charting, and more. To learn more about Yahoo Finance Plus please visit: https://yhoo.it/33jXYBp Connect with Yahoo Finance: Get the latest news: https://yhoo.it/2fGu5Bb Find Yahoo Finance on Facebook: http://bit.ly/2A9u5Zq Follow Yahoo Finance on Twitter: http://bit.ly/2LMgloP Follow Yahoo Finance on Instagram: http://bit.ly/2LOpNYz Follow Cashay.com Follow Yahoo Finance Premium on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3hhcnmV

CDC Announces Targeted Eviction Moratorium After Protests

Aug 4, 2021  NBC News

The CDC has announced a new targeted eviction moratorium after the previous moratorium expired, leaving more than 10 million Americans at risk of losing their homes. NBC News’ Leigh Ann Caldwell explains how the new moratorium differs from the expired one and how Democrats were able to influence the CDC’s decision.  » Subscribe to NBC News: http://nbcnews.to/SubscribeToNBC » Watch more NBC video: http://bit.ly/MoreNBCNews NBC News Digital is a collection of innovative and powerful news brands that deliver compelling, diverse and engaging news stories. NBC News Digital features NBCNews.com, MSNBC.com, TODAY.com, Nightly News, Meet the Press, Dateline, and the existing apps and digital extensions of these respective properties. We deliver the best in breaking news, live video coverage, original journalism and segments from your favorite NBC News Shows. Connect with NBC News Online! NBC News App: https://smart.link/5d0cd9df61b80 Breaking News Alerts: https://link.nbcnews.com/join/5cj/bre… Visit NBCNews.Com: http://nbcnews.to/ReadNBC Find NBC News on Facebook: http://nbcnews.to/LikeNBC Follow NBC News on Twitter: http://nbcnews.to/FollowNBC Follow NBC News on Instagram: http://nbcnews.to/InstaNBC #Eviction #Housing #CDC

NJ eviction moratorium to end soon for some tenants

For the last 1 ½ years, renters across New Jersey have been able to keep a roof over their head regardless of nonpayment of rent, thanks to an eviction moratorium in the state. But a new law is ending that protection as of Aug. 31 for people who make more than 80% of their county’s area median income. For those who make less than 80% of the area median income, the moratorium will be extended through Dec. 31.

Tenants who make more than 80% of the area median income and who are still struggling to pay rent will have to certify under penalty of law that their failure to pay is related to COVID-19. If they can prove that, the moratorium will be extended for them.

While housing advocates say the measure will provide some relief, landlords say it continues to put the brunt of the financial weight on them.

What to know about the eviction moratorium as it nears expiration again

Aug 25, 2021  PBS NewsHour

The clock is ticking away again for those who could face eviction this fall. The CDC’s pandemic moratorium on evictions is set to expire in early October — or possibly even sooner. The Biden administration is pushing states, cities, and counties to tap into more federal aid, and get it to those who need it. But as John Yang reports, new data shows those efforts are moving much slower than needed. Stream your PBS favorites with the PBS app: https://to.pbs.org/2Jb8twG Find more from PBS NewsHour at https://www.pbs.org/newshour Subscribe to our YouTube channel: https://bit.ly/2HfsCD6

Oct 4, 2021   PBSNewsHour

The “Pandora Papers,” written by a worldwide consortium of journalists, reveal how world leaders and the mega-rich can hide billions of dollars in secret offshore accounts, which investigators say drain money from government treasuries and can undermine national security. Nick Schifrin talks to Drew Sullivan, co-founder and editor of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, or OCCRP. Stream your PBS favorites with the PBS app: https://to.pbs.org/2Jb8twG Find more from PBS NewsHour at https://www.pbs.org/newshour Subscribe to our YouTube channel: https://bit.ly/2HfsCD6 Follow us: Facebook: http://www.pbs.org/newshour Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/newsho

What are the Pandora Papers?

Oct 3, 2021  Washington Post

A massive trove of private financial records shared with The Washington Post exposes vast reaches of the secretive offshore system used to hide billions of dollars from tax authorities, creditors, criminal investigators and citizens around the world. Read more: https://wapo.st/3A0AVdi. Subscribe to The Washington Post on YouTube: https://wapo.st/2QOdcqK Follow us: Twitter: https://twitter.com/washingtonpost Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/washingtonp… Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/washingtonpost/ #WashingtonPost #PostDocs #PandoraPapers

The Pandora Papers: How the world of offshore finance is still flourishing | Four Corners

Oct 4, 2021  ABC News In-depth

In a major international investigation, Four Corners reveals the secrets of the Pandora Papers. Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/c/abcnewsindepth For months, more than 600 journalists from around the world, including the ABC, the Washington Post and the BBC, have been working with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists on this top-secret investigation. One of the biggest data leaks in history, the papers reveal how the wealthy and powerful are continuing to use offshore tax havens to hide their ownership of assets and stash their cash – despite attempts to rein the industry in.  _________

Political Divisions Threaten President Biden’s Agenda | Washington Week | October 1, 2021

Oct 1, 2021  Washington Week PBS

Democrats clashed over the size of President Biden’s infrastructure package, as Congress passed a bill to avoid a federal government shutdown before the deadline. The panel also discussed America’s continued division over COVID vaccines and mandates, plus a look into the testimony from military leaders on the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Panel: Laura Barrón-López of POLITICO, Natasha Bertrand of CNN, Garrett Haake of NBC News, Carl Hulse of The New York Times

Go to the top

Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and The Swallowtail Butterfly in Ing & John’s Backyard Garden  

Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and The Swallowtail Butterfly in Ing & John’s Backyard Garden  

I love my little garden in our backyard, in Downtown Newark, New Jersey.  I feel calm and peaceful seeing green leaves with beautiful flowers in different shade of color.  The bees are buzzing and dancing around different flowers for the juicy nectar.  I saw some Monarch Butterflies on difference occasions.  On Monday, July 27, 2020 I was very lucky to have a large beautiful Swallowtail butterfly come to visit our garden and enjoy tasting the nectar from our butterfly bush flowers.  I ran in the house to get my camcorder to record for our grandsons.  One grandson is 5 months old and other just turned 5 years old.

Nature always gives us peace and happiness, if we cultivate and take care of it.  Humans are part of nature.  Some who cultivate their behavior and contribute their knowledge and time for the good of society thereby help humanity reach harmony and peace.  Sadly, such a person just passed away. The late Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a person that we can be proud to know about. She will always be remembered and we will forever be grateful for her contributions.  

I wish to dedicate my peaceful garden to the late Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for her lifelong achievements.  May she rest in peace.  We will always keep her in our minds and hearts.

Ing-On Vibulbhan-Watts, Monday, September 21, 2020

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (/?be?d?r ???nzb??r?/; born Joan Ruth Bader; March 15, 1933 – September 18, 2020),[1] also known by her initials RBG, was an American jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1993 until her death in 2020. She was nominated by President Bill Clinton and was generally viewed as belonging to the liberal wing of the Court. Ginsburg was the second woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, after Sandra Day O’Connor. During her tenure on the Court, Ginsburg authored notable majority opinions, including United States v. Virginia (1996), Olmstead v. L.C. (1999), and Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. (2000). Following O’Connor’s retirement in 2006 and until Sonia Sotomayor joined the Court in 2009, she was the only female justice on the Supreme Court. During that time, Ginsburg became more forceful with her dissents, which were noted by legal observers and in popular culture.

Ginsburg was born and grew up in Brooklyn, New York. Her older sister died when she was a baby, and her mother died shortly before Ginsburg graduated from high school. She then earned her bachelor’s degree at Cornell University and became a wife to Martin D. Ginsburg and a mother before starting law school at Harvard, where she was one of the few women in her class. Ginsburg transferred to Columbia Law School, where she graduated tied for first in her class. Following law school, Ginsburg entered academia. She was a professor at Rutgers Law School and Columbia Law School, teaching civil procedure as one of the few women in her field.

Ginsburg spent a considerable part of her legal career as an advocate for gender equality and women’s rights, winning multiple arguments before the Supreme Court. She advocated as a volunteer attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union and was a member of its board of directors and one of its general counsels in the 1970s. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter appointed her to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where she served until her appointment to the Supreme Court. Ginsburg received attention in American popular culture for her fiery liberal dissents and refusal to step down. She was playfully dubbed “The Notorious R.B.G.”, a reference to Brooklyn-born rapper The Notorious B.I.G.[2]

 Ginsburg died at her home in Washington, D.C., on September 18, 2020, at the age of 87, from complications of metastatic pancreatic cancer.[3][4]

Early life and education

Joan Ruth Bader was born in the New York City borough of Brooklyn, the second daughter of Celia (née Amster) and Nathan Bader, who lived in the Flatbush neighborhood. Her father was a Jewish emigrant from OdessaRussian Empire, and her mother was born in New York to Austrian Jewish parents.[5][6][7] The Baders’ elder daughter Marylin died of meningitis at age six, when Ruth was 14 months old.[1]:3[8][9] The family called Joan Ruth “Kiki”, a nickname Marylin had given her for being “a kicky baby”.[1]:3[10] When “Kiki” started school, Celia discovered that her daughter’s class had several other girls named Joan, so Celia suggested the teacher call her daughter “Ruth” to avoid confusion.[1]:3 Although not devout, the Bader family belonged to East Midwood Jewish Center, a Conservative synagogue, where Ruth learned tenets of the Jewish faith and gained familiarity with the Hebrew language.[1]:14–15 At age 13, Ruth acted as the “camp rabbi” at a Jewish summer program at Camp Che-Na-Wah in Minerva, New York.[10]

Celia took an active role in her daughter’s education, often taking her to the library.[10] Celia had been a good student in her youth, graduating from high school at age 15, yet she could not further her own education because her family instead chose to send her brother to college. Celia wanted her daughter to get more education, which she thought would allow Ruth to become a high school history teacher.[11] Ruth attended James Madison High School, whose law program later dedicated a courtroom in her honor. Celia struggled with cancer throughout Ruth’s high school years and died the day before Ruth’s high school graduation.[10]

 Bader attended Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, and was a member of Alpha Epsilon Phi.[12] While at Cornell, she met Martin D. Ginsburg at age 17.[11] She graduated from Cornell with a bachelor of arts degree in government on June 23, 1954. She was a member of Phi Beta Kappa and the highest-ranking female student in her graduating class.[12][13] Bader married Ginsburg a month after her graduation from Cornell. She and Martin moved to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, where he was stationed as a Reserve Officers’ Training Corps officer in the Army Reserve after his call-up to active duty.[11][14][13] At age 21, she worked for the Social Security Administration office in Oklahoma, where she was demoted after becoming pregnant with her first child.[9] She gave birth to a daughter in 1955.[9]

In the fall of 1956, Ginsburg enrolled at Harvard Law School, where she was one of only nine women in a class of about 500 men.[15][16] The Dean of Harvard Law reportedly invited all the female law students to dinner at his family home and asked the female law students, including Ginsburg, “Why are you at Harvard Law School, taking the place of a man?”[a][11][17][18] When her husband took a job in New York City, Ginsburg transferred to Columbia Law School and became the first woman to be on two major law reviews: the Harvard Law Review and Columbia Law Review. In 1959, she earned her law degree at Columbia and tied for first in her class.[10][19]

Early career

At the start of her legal career, Ginsburg encountered difficulty in finding employment.[20][21][22] In 1960, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter rejected Ginsburg for a clerkship position due to her gender. She was rejected despite a strong recommendation from Albert Martin Sacks, who was a professor and later dean of Harvard Law School.[23][24][b] Columbia law professor Gerald Gunther also pushed for Judge Edmund L. Palmieri of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to hire Ginsburg as a law clerk, threatening to never recommend another Columbia student to Palmieri if he did not give Ginsburg the opportunity and guaranteeing to provide the judge with a replacement clerk should Ginsburg not succeed.[9][10][25] Later that year, Ginsburg began her clerkship for Judge Palmieri, and she held the position for two years.[9][10]

Academia

From 1961 to 1963, Ginsburg was a research associate and then an associate director of the Columbia Law School Project on International Procedure; she learned Swedish to co-author a book with Anders Bruzelius on civil procedure in Sweden.[26][27] Ginsburg conducted extensive research for her book at Lund University in Sweden.[28] Ginsburg’s time in Sweden also influenced her thinking on gender equality. She was inspired when she observed the changes in Sweden, where women were 20 to 25 percent of all law students; one of the judges whom Ginsburg watched for her research was eight months pregnant and still working.[11]

Her first position as a professor was at Rutgers Law School in 1963.[29] The appointment was not without its drawbacks; Ginsburg was informed she would be paid less than her male colleagues because she had a husband with a well-paid job.[22] At the time Ginsburg entered academia, she was one of fewer than 20 female law professors in the United States.[29] She was a professor of law, mainly civil procedure, at Rutgers from 1963 to 1972, receiving tenure from the school in 1969.[30][31]

In 1970, she co-founded the Women’s Rights Law Reporter, the first law journal in the U.S. to focus exclusively on women’s rights.[32] From 1972 to 1980, she taught at Columbia Law School, where she became the first tenured woman and co-authored the first law school casebook on sex discrimination.[31] She also spent a year as a fellow of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University from 1977 to 1978.[33]

Ginsburg in 1977, photographed by Lynn Gilbert

Litigation and advocacy

In 1972, Ginsburg co-founded the Women’s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and in 1973, she became the Project’s general counsel.[13] The Women’s Rights Project and related ACLU projects participated in more than three hundred gender discrimination cases by 1974. As the director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, she argued six gender discrimination cases before the Supreme Court between 1973 and 1976, winning five.[23] Rather than asking the court to end all gender discrimination at once, Ginsburg charted a strategic course, taking aim at specific discriminatory statutes and building on each successive victory. She chose plaintiffs carefully, at times picking male plaintiffs to demonstrate that gender discrimination was harmful to both men and women.[23][31] The laws Ginsburg targeted included those that on the surface appeared beneficial to women, but in fact reinforced the notion that women needed to be dependent on men.[23] Her strategic advocacy extended to word choice, favoring the use of “gender” instead of “sex”, after her secretary suggested the word “sex” would serve as a distraction to judges.[31] She attained a reputation as a skilled oral advocate, and her work led directly to the end of gender discrimination in many areas of the law.[34]

Ginsburg volunteered to write the brief for Reed v. Reed404 U.S. 71 (1971), in which the Supreme Court extended the protections of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to women.[31][35][c] In 1972, she argued before the 10th Circuit in Moritz v. Commissioner on behalf of a man who had been denied a caregiver deduction because of his gender. As amicus she argued in Frontiero v. Richardson411 U.S. 677 (1973), which challenged a statute making it more difficult for a female service member (Frontiero) to claim an increased housing allowance for her husband than for a male service member seeking the same allowance for his wife. Ginsburg argued that the statute treated women as inferior, and the Supreme Court ruled 8–1 in Frontiero’s favor.[23] The court again ruled in Ginsburg’s favor in Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld420 U.S. 636 (1975), where Ginsburg represented a widower denied survivor benefits under Social Security, which permitted widows but not widowers to collect special benefits while caring for minor children. She argued that the statute discriminated against male survivors of workers by denying them the same protection as their female counterparts.[37]

Ginsburg filed an amicus brief and sat with counsel at oral argument for Craig v. Boren429 U.S. 190 (1976), which challenged an Oklahoma statute that set different minimum drinking ages for men and women.[23][37] For the first time, the court imposed what is known as intermediate scrutiny on laws discriminating based on gender, a heightened standard of Constitutional review.[23][37][38] Her last case as an attorney before the Supreme Court was in 1978 Duren v. Missouri439 U.S. 357 (1979), which challenged the validity of voluntary jury duty for women, on the ground that participation in jury duty was a citizen’s vital governmental service and therefore should not be optional for women. At the end of Ginsburg’s oral argument, then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist asked Ginsburg, “You won’t settle for putting Susan B. Anthony on the new dollar, then?”[39] Ginsburg said she considered responding, “We won’t settle for tokens,” but instead opted not to answer the question.[39]

 Legal scholars and advocates credit Ginsburg’s body of work with making significant legal advances for women under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.[31][23] Taken together, Ginsburg’s legal victories discouraged legislatures from treating women and men differently under the law.[31][23][37] She continued to work on the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project until her appointment to the Federal Bench in 1980.[31] Later, colleague Antonin Scalia praised Ginsburg’s skills as an advocate. “She became the leading (and very successful) litigator on behalf of women’s rights—the Thurgood Marshall of that cause, so to speak.” This was a comparison that had first been made by former Solicitor General Erwin Griswold who was also her former professor and dean at Harvard Law School, in a speech given in 1985.[40][41][d]

Ginsburg with President Jimmy Carter in 1980

U.S. Court of Appeals

Ginsburg was nominated by President Jimmy Carter on April 14, 1980, to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated by Judge Harold Leventhal after his death.[30] She was confirmed by the United States Senate on June 18, 1980, and received her commission later that day.[30] Her service terminated on August 9, 1993, due to her elevation to the United States Supreme Court.[30][42][43] During her time as a judge on the DC Circuit, Ginsburg often found consensus with her colleagues including conservatives Robert H. Bork and Antonin Scalia.[44][45] Her time on the court earned her a reputation as a “cautious jurist” and a moderate.[46] David S. Tatel replaced her after Ginsburg’s appointment to the Supreme Court.[47]

Chief Justice William Rehnquist swearing in Ginsburg as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, as her husband Martin Ginsburg and President Clinton watch

Supreme Court

Nomination and confirmation

Ginsburg officially accepting the nomination from President Bill Clinton on June 14, 1993

President Bill Clinton nominated Ginsburg as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on June 14, 1993, to fill the seat vacated by retiring Justice Byron White. She was recommended to Clinton by then–U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno,[19] after a suggestion by Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch.[48] At the time of her nomination, Ginsburg was viewed as a moderate. Clinton was reportedly looking to increase the court’s diversity, which Ginsburg did as the only Jewish justice since the 1969 resignation of Justice Abe Fortas. She was the second female and the first Jewish female justice of the Supreme Court.[46][49][50] She eventually became the longest-serving Jewish justice.[51] The American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary rated Ginsburg as “well qualified”, its highest possible rating for a prospective justice.[52]

During her testimony before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary as part of the confirmation hearings, Ginsburg refused to answer questions about her view on the constitutionality of some issues such as the death penalty as it was an issue she might have to vote on if it came before the court.[53]

At the same time, Ginsburg did answer questions about some potentially controversial issues. For instance, she affirmed her belief in a constitutional right to privacy and explained at some length her personal judicial philosophy and thoughts regarding gender equality.[54]:15–16 Ginsburg was more forthright in discussing her views on topics about which she had previously written.[53] The United States Senate confirmed her by a 96–3 vote on August 3, 1993,[e][30] She received her commission on August 5, 1993[30] and took her judicial oath on August 10, 1993.[56]

Ginsburg’s name was later invoked during the confirmation process of John Roberts. Ginsburg herself was not the first nominee to avoid answering certain specific questions before Congress,[f] and as a young attorney in 1981 Roberts had advised against Supreme Court nominees’ giving specific responses.[57] Nevertheless, some conservative commentators and Senators invoked the phrase “Ginsburg precedent” to defend his demurrers.[52][57] In a September 28, 2005, speech at Wake Forest University, Ginsburg said Roberts’ refusal to answer questions during his Senate confirmation hearings on some cases was “unquestionably right”.[58]

Supreme Court jurisprudence

Ginsburg characterized her performance on the court as a cautious approach to adjudication.[59] She argued in a speech shortly before her nomination to the court that “[m]easured motions seem to me right, in the main, for constitutional as well as common law adjudication. Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable.”[60] Legal scholar Cass Sunstein characterized Ginsburg as a “rational minimalist”, a jurist who seeks to build cautiously on precedent rather than pushing the Constitution towards her own vision.[61]:10–11

 Sandra Day O’ConnorSonia Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan, October 1, 2010. O’Connor is not wearing a robe because she was retired from the court when the picture was taken.

The retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in 2006 left Ginsburg as the only woman on the court.[62][g] Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times referred to the subsequent 2006–2007 term of the court as “the time when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg found her voice, and used it”.[64] The term also marked the first time in Ginsburg’s history with the court where she read multiple dissents from the bench, a tactic employed to signal more intense disagreement with the majority.[64]

With the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens, Ginsburg became the senior member of what was sometimes referred to as the court’s “liberal wing”.[31][65][66] When the court split 5–4 along ideological lines and the liberal justices were in the minority, Ginsburg often had the authority to assign authorship of the dissenting opinion because of her seniority.[65][h] Ginsburg was a proponent of the liberal dissenters speaking “with one voice” and, where practicable, presenting a unified approach to which all the dissenting justices can agree.[31][65]

Gender discrimination

Ginsburg authored the court’s opinion in United States v. Virginia518 U.S. 515 (1996), which struck down the Virginia Military Institute‘s (VMI) male-only admissions policy as violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. VMI is a prestigious, state-run, military-inspired institution that did not admit women. For Ginsburg, a state actor such as VMI could not use gender to deny women the opportunity to attend VMI with its unique educational methods.[68] Ginsburg emphasized that the government must show an “exceedingly persuasive justification” to use a classification based on sex.[69]

Commissioned portrait of Ginsburg in 2000

Ginsburg dissented in the court’s decision on Ledbetter v. Goodyear550 U.S. 618 (2007), a case where plaintiff Lilly Ledbetter filed a lawsuit against her employer claiming pay discrimination based on her gender under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a 5–4 decision, the majority interpreted the statute of limitations as starting to run at the time of every pay period, even if a woman did not know she was being paid less than her male colleague until later. Ginsburg found the result absurd, pointing out that women often do not know they are being paid less, and therefore it was unfair to expect them to act at the time of each paycheck. She also called attention to the reluctance women may have in male-dominated fields to making waves by filing lawsuits over small amounts, choosing instead to wait until the disparity accumulates.[70] As part of her dissent, Ginsburg called on Congress to amend Title VII to undo the court’s decision with legislation.[71] Following the election of President Barack Obama in 2008, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, making it easier for employees to win pay discrimination claims, became law.[72][73] Ginsburg was credited with helping to inspire the law.[71][73]

Abortion rights

Ginsburg discussed her views on abortion and gender equality in a 2009 New York Times interview, in which she said about abortion “[t]he basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.”[74] Although Ginsburg consistently supported abortion rights and joined in the court’s opinion striking down Nebraska‘s partial-birth abortion law in Stenberg v. Carhart530 U.S. 914 (2000), on the 40th anniversary of the court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade410 U.S. 113 (1973), she criticized the decision in Roe as terminating a nascent democratic movement to liberalize abortion laws which might have built a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights.[75] Ginsburg was in the minority for Gonzales v. Carhart550 U.S. 124 (2007), a 5–4 decision upholding restrictions on partial birth abortion. In her dissent, Ginsburg opposed the majority’s decision to defer to legislative findings that the procedure was not safe for women. Ginsburg focused her ire on the way Congress reached its findings and with the veracity of the findings.[76] Joining the majority for Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt579 U.S. 15-274 (2016), a case which struck down parts of a 2013 Texas law regulating abortion providers, Ginsburg also authored a short concurring opinion which was even more critical of the legislation at issue.[77] She asserted the legislation was not aimed at protecting women’s health, as Texas had said, but rather to impede women’s access to abortions.[76][77]

Search and seizure

Although Ginsburg did not author the majority opinion, she was credited with influencing her colleagues on the case Safford Unified School District v. Redding557 U.S. 364 (2009).[78] The court ruled that a school went too far in ordering a 13-year-old female student to strip to her bra and underpants so female officials could search for drugs.[78] In an interview published prior to the court’s decision, Ginsburg shared her view that some of her colleagues did not fully appreciate the effect of a strip search on a 13-year-old girl. As she said, “They have never been a 13-year-old girl.”[79] In an 8–1 decision, the court agreed that the school’s search went too far and violated the Fourth Amendment and allowed the student’s lawsuit against the school to go forward. Only Ginsburg and Stevens would have allowed the student to sue individual school officials as well.[78]

In Herring v. United States555 U.S. 135 (2009), Ginsburg dissented from the court’s decision not to suppress evidence due to a police officer’s failure to update a computer system. In contrast to Roberts’ emphasis on suppression as a means to deter police misconduct, Ginsburg took a more robust view on the use of suppression as a remedy for a violation of a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Ginsburg viewed suppression as a way to prevent the government from profiting from mistakes, and therefore as a remedy to preserve judicial integrity and respect civil rights.[80]:308 She also rejected Roberts’ assertion that suppression would not deter mistakes, contending making police pay a high price for mistakes would encourage them to take greater care.[80]:309

International law

Ginsburg advocated the use of foreign law and norms to shape U.S. law in judicial opinions, a view rejected by some of her conservative colleagues. Ginsburg supported using foreign interpretations of law for persuasive value and possible wisdom, not as precedent which the court is bound to follow.[81] Ginsburg expressed the view that consulting international law is a well-ingrained tradition in American law, counting John Henry Wigmore and President John Adams as internationalists.[82] Ginsburg’s own reliance on international law dated back to her time as an attorney; in her first argument before the court, Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971), she cited two German cases.[83] In her concurring opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger539 U.S. 306 (2003), a decision upholding Michigan Law School’s affirmative action admissions policy, Ginsburg noted there was accord between the notion that affirmative action admissions policies would have an end point and agrees with international treaties designed to combat racial and gender-based discrimination.[82]

Portrait of Ginsburg, c.? 2006

Other activities

At his request, Ginsburg administered the oath of office to Vice President Al Gore for a second term during the second inauguration of Bill Clinton on January 20, 1997.[84] She was the third woman to administer an inaugural oath of office.[85] Ginsburg is believed to have been the first Supreme Court justice to officiate at a same-sex wedding, performing the August 31, 2013, ceremony of Kennedy Center President Michael Kaiser and John Roberts, a government economist.[86] Earlier that summer, the court had bolstered same-sex marriage rights in two separate cases.[87][88] Ginsburg believed the issue being settled led same-sex couples to ask her to officiate as there was no longer the fear of compromising rulings on the issue.[87]

The Supreme Court bar formerly inscribed its certificates “in the year of our Lord”, which some Orthodox Jews opposed, and asked Ginsburg to object to. She did so, and due to her objection, Supreme Court bar members have since been given other choices of how to inscribe the year on their certificates.[89]

Despite their ideological differences, Ginsburg considered Scalia her closest colleague on the court. The two justices often dined together and attended the opera.[90] In addition to befriending modern composers, including Tobias Picker,[91][92] in her spare time, Ginsburg appeared in several operas in non-speaking supernumerary roles such as Die Fledermaus (2003) and Ariadne auf Naxos (1994 and 2009 with Scalia),[93] and spoke lines penned by herself in The Daughter of the Regiment (2016).[94]

In January 2012, Ginsburg went to Egypt for four days of discussions with judges, law school faculty, law school students, and legal experts.[95][96] In an interview with Al Hayat TV, she said the first requirement of a new constitution should be that it would “safeguard basic fundamental human rights like our First Amendment“. Asked if Egypt should model its new constitution on those of other nations, she said Egypt should be “aided by all Constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II”, and cited the United States Constitution and Constitution of South Africa as documents she might look to if drafting a new constitution. She said the U.S. was fortunate to have a constitution authored by “very wise” men but said that in the 1780s, no women were able to participate directly in the process, and slavery still existed in the U.S.[97]

During three separate interviews in July 2016, Ginsburg criticized presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, telling The New York Times and the Associated Press that she did not want to think about the possibility of a Trump presidency. She joked that she might consider moving to New Zealand.[98][99] She later apologized for commenting on the presumptive Republican nominee, calling her remarks “ill advised”.[100]

Ginsburg speaking at a naturalization ceremony at the National Archives in 2018

Ginsburg’s first book, My Own Words published by Simon & Schuster, was released October 4, 2016.[101] The book debuted on The New York Times Best Seller List for hardcover nonfiction at No. 12.[102] While promoting her book in October 2016 during an interview with Katie Couric, Ginsburg responded to a question about Colin Kaepernick choosing not to stand for the national anthem at sporting events by calling the protest “really dumb”. She later apologized for her criticism calling her earlier comments “inappropriately dismissive and harsh” and noting she had not been familiar with the incident and should have declined to respond to the question.[103][104][105]

In 2018, Ginsburg expressed her support for the #MeToo movement, which encourages women to speak up about their experiences with sexual harassment.[106] She told an audience, “It’s about time. For so long women were silent, thinking there was nothing you could do about it, but now the law is on the side of women, or men, who encounter harassment and that’s a good thing.”[106] She also reflected on her own experiences with gender discrimination and sexual harassment, including a time when a chemistry professor at Cornell unsuccessfully attempted to trade her exam answers for sex.[106]

 Martin and Ruth Ginsburg at a White House event, 2009

Personal life

A few days after Bader graduated from Cornell, she married Martin D. Ginsburg, who later became an internationally prominent tax attorney practicing at Weil, Gotshal & Manges. Upon her accession to the D.C. Circuit, the couple moved from New York to Washington, D.C., where her husband became professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center. Their daughter, Jane C. Ginsburg (b. 1955), is a professor at Columbia Law School. Their son, James Steven Ginsburg (b. 1965), is the founder and president of Cedille Records, a classical music recording company based in Chicago, Illinois. Ginsburg was a grandmother of four.[107]

Ginsburg with her husband Martin and their daughter Jane in 1958 copyright AP

After the birth of their daughter, Ginsburg’s husband was diagnosed with testicular cancer. During this period, Ginsburg attended class and took notes for both of them, typing her husband’s dictated papers and caring for their daughter and her sick husband—all while making the Harvard Law Review. They celebrated their 56th wedding anniversary on June 23, 2010. Martin Ginsburg died of complications from metastatic cancer on June 27, 2010.[108] They spoke publicly of being in a shared earning/shared parenting marriage including in a speech Martin Ginsburg wrote and had intended to give before his death that Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered posthumously.[109]

Ginsburg poses for the camera while holding hands with her grandchildren Clara and Paul Spera in 1993.  Behind her are, from left, son-in-law George Spera, daughter Jane Ginsburg, husband Martin and son James Ginsburg (copyright Doug Mills/AP)

Bader was a non-observant Jew.[110] In March 2015, Ginsburg and Rabbi Lauren Holtzblatt released “The Heroic and Visionary Women of Passover”, an essay highlighting the roles of five key women in the saga: “These women had a vision leading out of the darkness shrouding their world. They were women of action, prepared to defy authority to make their vision a reality bathed in the light of the day.”[111] In addition, she decorated her chambers with an artist’s rendering of the Hebrew phrase from Deuteronomy, “Zedek, zedek, tirdof,” (“Justice, justice shall you pursue”) as a reminder of her heritage and professional responsibility.[112]

Bader was a non-observant Jew.[110] In March 2015, Ginsburg and Rabbi Lauren Holtzblatt released “The Heroic and Visionary Women of Passover”, an essay highlighting the roles of five key women in the saga: “These women had a vision leading out of the darkness shrouding their world. They were women of action, prepared to defy authority to make their vision a reality bathed in the light of the day.”[111] In addition, she decorated her chambers with an artist’s rendering of the Hebrew phrase from Deuteronomy, “Zedek, zedek, tirdof,” (“Justice, justice shall you pursue”) as a reminder of her heritage and professional responsibility.[112]

Ginsburg had a collection of lace jabots from around the world.[113][114] She said in 2014 she had a particular jabot she wore when issuing her dissents (black with gold embroidery and faceted stones) as well as another she wore when issuing majority opinions (crocheted yellow and cream with crystals), which was a gift from her law clerks.[113][114] Her favorite jabot (woven with white beads) was from Cape Town, South Africa.[113]

Health

In 1999, Ginsburg was diagnosed with colon cancer, the first of five[115] bouts of cancer. She underwent surgery followed by chemotherapy and radiation therapy. During the process, she did not miss a day on the bench.[116] Ginsburg was physically weakened by the cancer treatment, and she began working with a personal trainer. Bryant Johnson, a former Army reservist attached to the Special Forces, trained Ginsburg twice weekly in the justices-only gym at the Supreme Court.[117][118] Ginsburg saw her physical fitness improve after her first bout with cancer; she was able to complete 20 push-ups in a session before her 80th birthday.[117][119]

Nearly a decade after her first bout with cancer, Ginsburg again underwent surgery on February 5, 2009, this time for pancreatic cancer.[120][121] Ginsburg had a tumor that was discovered at an early stage.[120] She was released from a New York City hospital on February 13 and returned to the bench when the Supreme Court went back into session on February 23, 2009.[122][123][124] After experiencing discomfort while exercising in the Supreme Court gym in November 2014, she had a stent placed in her right coronary artery.[125][126]

Ginsburg’s next hospitalization helped her detect another round of cancer.[127] On November 8, 2018, Ginsburg fell in her office at the Supreme Court, fracturing three ribs, for which she was hospitalized.[128] An outpouring of public support followed.[129][130] Although the day after her fall, Ginsburg’s nephew revealed she had already returned to official judicial work after a day of observation,[131] a CT scan of her ribs following her November 8 fall showed cancerous nodules in her lungs.[127] On December 21, Ginsburg underwent a left-lung lobectomy at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center to remove the nodules.[127] For the first time since joining the Court more than 25 years earlier, Ginsburg missed oral argument on January 7, 2019, while she recuperated.[132] She returned to the Supreme Court on February 15 to participate in a private conference with other justices in her first appearance at the court since her cancer surgery in December 2018.[133]

Months later in August 2019, the Supreme Court announced that Ginsburg had recently completed three weeks of focused radiation treatment to ablate a tumor found in her pancreas over the summer.[134] By January 2020, Ginsburg was cancer-free. By February 2020, Ginsberg was not cancer free but it was not released to the public. [135] However, by May 2020, Ginsburg was once again receiving treatment for a recurrence of cancer.[136] She reiterated her position that she “would remain a member of the court as long as I can do the job full steam”, adding that she remained fully able to do so.[137][138]

Longevity in the court

When John Paul Stevens retired in 2010, Ginsburg became the oldest justice on the court at age 77.[139] Despite rumors that she would retire because of advancing age, poor health, and the death of her husband,[140][141] she denied she was planning to step down. In an August 2010 interview, Ginsburg said her work on the court was helping her cope with the death of her husband.[139] She also expressed a wish to emulate Justice Louis Brandeis‘ service of nearly 23 years, which she achieved in April 2016.[139][142] She stated she had a new “model” to emulate in former colleague Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired at age 90 after nearly 35 years on the bench.[142]

During the presidency of Barack Obama, some progressive attorneys and activists called for Ginsburg to retire so Obama could appoint a like-minded successor,[143][144][145] particularly while the Democratic Party held control of the U.S. Senate.[146] They mentioned Ginsburg’s age and past health issues as factors making her longevity uncertain.[144] Ginsburg rejected these pleas.[65] She affirmed her wish to remain a justice as long as she was mentally sharp enough to perform her duties.[65] Moreover, Ginsburg opined that the political climate would prevent Obama from appointing a jurist like herself.[147] At the time of her death in September 2020, Ginsburg was, at age 87, the fourth-oldest serving U.S. Supreme Court Justice in the history of the country.[148]

Candles left on the steps of the Supreme Court following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Ginsburg died from complications of pancreatic cancer on September 18, 2020, at age 87.[149][150][4] One day before her death, Ginsburg was honored on Constitution Day and was awarded the 2020 Liberty Medal by the National Constitution Center.[151] It was reported that she will be interred in Arlington National Cemetery next to her husband Martin D. Ginsburg.[152][153]

Succession

Main article: 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy

Ginsburg’s death created a vacancy on the Supeme Court in a presidential election year.[154] Days before her death, Ginsburg dictated in a statement through her granddaughter Clara Spera, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”[155] Four years earlier, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to allow the Senate to consider President Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Scalia, citing the Thurmond rule, an inconsistently applied practice which posits that the senate will not confirm a Supreme Court nominee during a presidential election year except under certain circumstances.[156]

Ginsburg receiving the LBJ Liberty & Justice for All Award from Lynda Johnson Robb and Luci Baines Johnson at the Library of Congress in January 2020

Recognition

In 2002, Ginsburg was inducted into the National Women’s Hall of Fame.[157] Ginsburg was named one of 100 Most Powerful Women (2009),[158] one of Glamour magazine’s Women of the Year 2012,[159] and one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people (2015).[160] She was awarded honorary Doctor of Laws degrees by Willamette University (2009),[161] Princeton University (2010),[162] and Harvard University (2011).[163]

In 2009, Ginsberg received a Lifetime Achievement Award from Scribes–The American Society of Legal Writers.[164]

In 2013, a painting featuring the four female justices to have served as justices on the Supreme Court (Ginsburg, Sandra Day O’ConnorSonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan) was unveiled at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C.[165][166]

Researchers at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History gave a species of praying mantis the name Ilomantis ginsburgae after Ginsburg. The name was given because the neck plate of the Ilomantis ginsburgae bears a resemblance to a jabot, which Ginsburg was known for wearing. Moreover, the new species was identified based upon the female insect’s genitalia instead of based upon the male of the species. The researchers noted that the name was a nod to Ginsburg’s fight for gender equality.[167][168]

Ginsburg was the recipient of the 2019 $1 million Berggruen Prize for Philosophy and Culture.[169] Awarded annually, the Berggruen Institute stated it recognizes “thinkers whose ideas have profoundly shaped human self-understanding and advancement in a rapidly changing world”,[170] noting Ginsburg as “a lifelong trailblazer for human rights and gender equality”.[171] Ginsburg received numerous awards including the LBJ Foundation’s Liberty & Justice for All Award, the World Peace and Liberty Award from international legal groups, and a lifetime achievement award from Diane von Furstenberg‘s foundation all in 2020 alone.[172]

The Skirball Cultural Center in Los Angeles created an exhibition focusing on Ginsburg’s life and career exhibition in 2019 called Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[173][174]

A poster depicting Ginsburg as “the Notorious R.B.G.” in the likeness of American rapper The Notorious B.I.G., 2018

In popular culture

Ginsburg has been referred to as a “pop culture icon”.[175][176][177] Ginsburg’s profile began to rise after O’Connor’s retirement in 2006 left Ginsburg as the only serving female justice. Her increasingly fiery dissents, particularly in Shelby County v. Holder570 U.S. 2 (2013), led to the creation of the Notorious R.B.G. Tumblr and Internet meme comparing the justice to rapper The Notorious B.I.G.[178] The creator of the Notorious R.B.G. Tumblr, then-law student Shana Knizhnik, teamed up with MSNBC reporter Irin Carmon to turn the blog into a book titled Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[179] Released in October 2015, the book became a New York Times bestseller.[180] In 2015, Ginsburg and Scalia, known for their shared love of opera, were fictionalized in Scalia v. Ginsburg, an opera by Derrick Wang.[181]

Additionally, Ginsburg’s pop culture appeal has inspired nail art, Halloween costumes, a bobblehead doll, tattoos, t-shirts, coffee mugs, and a children’s coloring book among other things.[179][182][183][184] She appears in both a comic opera and a workout book.[184] Musician Jonathan Mann also made a song using part of her Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. dissent.[185] Ginsburg admitted to having a “large supply” of Notorious R.B.G. t-shirts, which she distributed as gifts.[186]

Since 2015, Kate McKinnon has portrayed Ginsburg on Saturday Night Live.[187] McKinnon has repeatedly reprised the role, including during a Weekend Update sketch that aired from the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland.[188][189] The segments typically feature McKinnon (as Ginsburg) lobbing insults she calls “Ginsburns” and doing a celebratory dance.[190][191] Filmmakers Betsy West and Julie Cohen created a documentary about Ginsburg, titled RBG, for CNN Films, which premiered at the 2018 Sundance Film Festival.[192][25] In the film Deadpool 2 (2018), a photo of her is shown as Deadpool considers her for his X-Force, a team of superheroes.[193] Another film, On the Basis of Sex, focusing on Ginsburg’s career struggles fighting for equal rights, was released later in 2018; its screenplay was named to the Black List of best unproduced screenplays of 2014.[194] English actress Felicity Jones portrays Ginsburg in the film, with Armie Hammer as her husband Marty.[195] Ginsburg herself has a cameo in the film.[196] The seventh season of the sitcom New Girl features a three-year-old character named Ruth Bader Schmidt, named after Ginsburg.[197] A Lego mini-figurine of Ginsburg is shown within a brief segment of The Lego Movie 2. Ginsburg gave her blessing for the cameo, as well as to have the mini-figurine produced as part of the Lego toy sets following the film’s release in February 2019.[198] Also in 2019, Samuel Adams released a limited-edition beer called When There Are Nine, referring to Ginsburg’s well-known reply to the question about when there would be enough women on the Supreme Court.[199]

Chief Justice John G Roberts, front center, poses in 2018 with, back row from left, Neil Gorsuch, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett M Kavanaugh and, front raw from left, Stephen Breyer, Clarence Thomas, Ginsburg and Samuel Alito copyright Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock

Image copyright THE WASHINGTON POST/GETTY

Ginsburg with Senators Daniel Moynihan (left) and Joe Biden in 1993

Although they were on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum, Justice Antonin Scalia (left) and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a professional respect for each other and a personal bond. Nina Totenberg, joined by intern Anthony Palmer, joined the two at a 2015 event.

Image from Nina Totenberg

PBS NewsHour Weekend Full Episode September 19, 2020

Sep 19, 2020  PBS NewsHour

 On this edition for Saturday, September 19, remembering Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who died due to complications from Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer on Friday — and the political battle her election-year vacancy brings. Hari Sreenivasan anchors from New York. Stream your PBS favorites with the PBS app: https://to.pbs.org/2Jb8twG Find more from PBS NewsHour at https://www.pbs.org/newshour Subscribe to our YouTube channel: https://bit.ly/2HfsCD6

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Swearing-In (1993)

Jul 8, 2016  clintonlibrary42

This is video footage of Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg being sworn in as Associate Supreme Court Justice. This footage is official public record produced by the White House Television (WHTV) crew, provided by the Clinton Presidential Library. Date: August 10, 1993 Location: East Room. White House. Washington, DC Access Restriction(s): unrestricted Use Restrictions(s): unrestricted Camera: White House Television (WHTV) / Main Local Identifiers: MT01028 This material is public domain, as it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person’s official duties. Any usage must receive the credit “Courtesy; William J. Clinton Presidential Library,” and no exclusive rights or permissions are granted for usage.

Announcement of Ginsburg as Supreme Court Justice Nominee

Apr 23, 2012  clintonlibrary42

This is video footage of President Clinton announcing the Ruth Bader Ginsburg as Supreme Court Justice nominee. This footage is official public record produced by the White House Television (WHTV) crew, provided by the Clinton Presidential Library. Date: June 14, 1993 Location: Rose Garden. White House. Washington, DC ARC Identifier: 6037153 http://www.archives.gov/research/search/ Access Restriction(s): unrestricted Use Restrictions(s): unrestricted Camera: White House Television (WHTV) / Main Local Identifiers: MT00790 This material is public domain, as it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. government as part of that person’s official duties. Any usage must receive the credit “Courtesy; William J. Clinton Presidential Library,” and no exclusive rights or permissions are granted for usage.

Thanks to Wikipedia for the above information

For more information please view the following link:

httphttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburgs://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg

Go to the top

Happy New Year Everyone from John and Ing in our Sculpture Garden

I went back to view my Blog and found our new year’s wish that I posted on January 1, 2016.  I like the poem I wrote, and our sculpture garden showing flowers blooming with bees and butterflies.  I decided to post the project again for our New Year’s wish to everyone around the world for Happiness and Peace for the year of 2020, and always.

Happy New Year Everyone from John and Ing in our Sculpture Garden

Wednesday, January 1, 2020

Downtown Newark, New Jersey,

🙂 🙂 🙂 Happy New Year Everyone 🙂 🙂 🙂

I enjoyed cultivating our garden and John enjoyed producing his sculptures.  We produced our Sculpture Garden for ourselves and hope that the others will enjoy it also.

From spring to fall our garden was full of flower blossoms and buzzing with bees, Swallowtail, Monarchs and Red admiral butterflies.  They were drinking nectar from the flowers while John and I were busy with our garden. 

We hope that our first grandson Kai, who is 4 months old in January 2016 and now in 2020 he is 4 years old, will be able to see what his grandpa and grandma were doing when he is old enough to understand. 

We are quite satisfied and happy with the result of our Sculpture Garden last year, 2015.  We would like to share some of the scenery of our garden that John and I captured all year round.

May Peace and Happiness be with all of us for 2020 and always.

John lays cement blocks building patio for his sculptures in our backyard garden.

May 2015:  John is laying a brick floor in some area of the garden.

Lays the Basic Foundation to be Better and Firm

Brick by brick he lays

One’s foundation of love

Love to make a basic ground for better and firm

Love to use two hands and brain to create

From a lump of clay

Forming certain shapes

Love to put thought

And experience into creating

Sculpture to be born

Love to explore and share

What one does

The love of nature

And love of fellow mankind

Keeps us alive and well

Let love dominate the world

Let us be calm and peaceful

Let us lay a basic foundation

Brick by brick

To be better and firm

Ing-On Vibulbhan-Watts, Wednesday, January 06, 2016, 4:07 pm

My first poem for this year, 2016

John cut cement blocks building patio for his sculptures in our backyard garden.

John was cleaning the wall.

August 2015:  John assembling his new sculpture.

Top left:  Cutting an iron pole for the sculpture

Right:  Calculating the length of each section

Ing’s sculpture, Tower of Freedom

This is another one of my sculptures.  John insists on having my two sculptures in our garden.

I love taking photos in the garden and enjoy seeing my flower blooms.  I like to sneak taking pictures of John when he is working in the garden.  Once I caught myself taking photo with flowers in the reflection of the entrance door to the house.

October 2015:  John and I received very sad news from a friend, Arthur Rogoff, who told us that Steve Mace, one of John pottery students and a friend, passed away.  John and I went to a remembrance gathering at Steve’s family home.  His wife said that before Steve passed away, he said that he wanted to give John the above sculpture. 

John made the sculpture in 1980 and Steve exchanged an early version of a camcorder for this sculpture from John.  We are very appreciative for the gift of this sculpture from Steve.  Steve was a very kind and generous person.  Every time John had gathering for the pottery students each year, Steve would bring his home-made special bread filled with sausage, cheese, pepper, onion and other ingredients that tasted delicious.  He also brought other items for the occasions.  I wish to dedicate this project to Steve Mace who we all miss and we will always think of fondly for the rest of our lives.   

The top part of sculpture was broken in the process of transportation from Steve house to our backyard sculptures garden.  John had to repair it.

Earlier in 2015, John laid a cement block patio for his sculptures in our backyard garden.  By adding the gift from Steve this makes it more meaningful and sentimental.  We will always think of him every time we are present in our sculpture garden.

May Peace and Happiness be with all of us for 2020 and always.

Ing-On Vibulbhan-Watts and John Watts, Wednesday, January 1, 2020

Go to the top

Trip To Swansea In My Husband’s Motherland , Wales – Part 6

Photograph by Ing-On Vibulbhan-Watts

 Ings Peace Project Organized by Kelly, Stephanie and their four Children

Kelly, Stephanie and their four Children, Lacey, Madison, Hallie, and Cleo were reciting Ing’s Peace poem, “Peace Come To You”, Swansea, Wales

“Peace Comes To You”
When you enjoy rain drops
Peace comes to you
When you hear birds sing
Peace comes to you
When you see fish swim in clean water
Peace comes to you
When you hear children laugh
Peace comes to you
And when you hum while walking in the wood
Peace comes to you
And when you sit quietly watching the sun rise and set
Listening to the waves sing
Then Peace comes to you
Let Peace come to you in different ways
Let Peace be with us all

“Peace” poem by Ing-On Vibulbhan-Watts, written on September 24, 2010

Hi Kelly & Stephanie,
I was very glad to see both of you and the girls. The girls are so lovely and very good kids. I love their drawings and comments on “What does Peace mean to you?” I really enjoyed that day, it made me forget about my sickness. John enjoyed cooked Pizza and prepared for everything. I was too weak to help him. He said he loved to do it for the kids. Thank you for everything. We appreciate all your help and your parents also.
Thanks again, please give my love to everyone.
All the best,
Ing
Ing-On Vibulbhan-Watts

John and I had bad colds all three weeks in Swansea, Wales. At the end of our trip, two days before we left Swansea, two of our former neighbors who become our good friends, came to visit us with their children, four girls. We were so glad to see them. The children sang Welsh songs for our grandson, Kai for me to record on my camcorder. All of them recited my Peace poem, “Peace Come To You”. They also joined in to write their comments on “What does Peace mean to you?”. 

 Ing-On Vibulbhan-Watts, Tuesday, October 31, 2017

 

Ing’s Peace Project Organized by Kelly and Stephanie and their Children
Lacey aged 11, Madison aged 14, Hallie aged 12, and Cleo kavanaghaged 11 commented on “What does Peace Mean to You?” Comments, Swansea, Wales
Photograph by Ing-On Vibulbhan-Watts
Their comments are as the following:

Peace means Love all around the world
Peace means care and kindness
Peace means happiness, relaxation and peace starts with Love
Peace is Life
Peace means getting down on a special chair, quietly watching over your garden
Peace means silence and kindness
Peace is joy, Sweetness and Love
Love. Love. Love. Love.
Peace means caring and kind
Peace starts with kind heart and Love!
Peace is Hope
Peace is us
Peace means Family
Be in Peace not in pieces
Peace begins with a smile
“Aren’t we all Humans then why can we all live in PEACE!!”
Peace is our gift to others
Peace is Beacks!
Peace means caring and Kind
Peace means Love
“Forgive others, not because they deserve forgiveness, but because you deserve peace”
Peace means that all is clam and Its also means to me is friendship and Loyalty.
Peace begins with a smile.
Peace is family
Peace means that everything is calm and relaxing

Ing-On Vibulbhan-Watts, Tuesday, October 31, 2017

 

Ing’s Peace Project Organized by Kelly and Stephanie and their Children
Lacey aged 11, Madison aged 14, Hallie aged 12, and Cleo kavanaghaged 11 commented on “What does Peace Mean to You?” Comments, Swansea, Wales

Their comments are as the following:
Peace means caring and kind
Peace starts with kind heart and Love!
Peace is Hope
Peace is us
Peace means Family
Be in Peace not in pieces
Peace begins with a smile
“Forgive others, not because they deserve forgiveness, but because you deserve peace”

 Kelly, Stephanie and their four Children, Lacey, Madison, Hallie, and Cleo were reciting Ing’s Peace poem, “Peace Come To You”, Swansea, Wales
“Peace Comes To You”
When you enjoy rain drops
Peace comes to you
When you hear birds sing
Peace comes to you
When you see fish swim in clean water
Peace comes to you
When you hear children laugh
Peace comes to you
And when you hum while walking in the wood
Peace comes to you
And when you sit quietly watching the sun rise and set
Listening to the waves sing
Then Peace comes to you
Let Peace come to you in different ways
Let Peace be with us all
“Peace” poem by Ing-On Vibulbhan-Watts, written on September 24, 2010
Ing-On Vibulbhan-Watts, Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Ing’s Peace Project Organized by Kelly and Stephanie and their Children
Lacey aged 11, Madison aged 14, Hallie aged 12, and Cleo kavanaghaged 11 commented on “What does Peace Mean to You?” Comments, Swansea, Wales

Their comments are as the following:

Peace means Love all around the world
Peace means care and kindness
Peace means happiness, relaxation and peace starts with Love
Peace is Life
Peace means getting down on a special chair, quietly watching over your garden
Peace means silence and kindness
Peace is joy, Sweetness and Love
Love. Love. Love. Love.

 Ing’s Peace Project Organized by Kelly and Stephanie and their Children
Lacey aged 11, Madison aged 14, Hallie aged 12, and Cleo kavanaghaged 11, commented on “What does Peace Mean to You?” Comments, Swansea, Wales

Some of their comments are as the following:

“Aren’t we all Humans then why can we all live in PEACE!!”
Peace is our gift to others
Peace is Beacks!
Peace means caring and Kind
Peace means Love
“Forgive others, not because they deserve forgiveness, but because you deserve peace”
Peace means that all is clam and Its also means to me is friendship and Loyalty.
Peace begins with a smile.
Peace is life

Before Kelly, Stephanie and four of their children came to our gathering John was very busy preparing pizza for everyone, especially for the children.  Because he knows that they love pizza.

 

John is a good cook and he presents his food nicely just like they are his artwork.

 

I love pepperoni and mushroom.  He used a mixture of cheeses for his home made pizza.

I was sick with a bad cold and could not help him.  But I thought John was enjoying making the food for the children and good friends.

 

Now Everybody was arriving and John’s hot pizza just came out of the oven ready to eat.

 

We all enjoyed John’s pizza.  The children said they loved it.

 

 

Ending with a slice of cake.  Our fully bellies said thanks to John for a wonderful meal.

I showed everyone the photos of Kai, our two years old grandson, and his parents, Mali and Jim.

 

I showed my Peace Poem and Peace Project from my website.

 

Lacey and Cleo were reading my Peace Poem.

 

Hallie was reading my Peace Poem.

 

Madison turned to read the Peace poem.

 

Madison was helping Cleo to recite my peace poem.

 

Kelly was generous enough to recite my Peace Poem.

Lacey and Cleo enjoyed singing Welsh songs for Kai to listen and watch from my camcorder.

Cleo and her mother, Stephanie, recite my Peace Poem.

 

Hallie was enjoying acting and reciting the poem.

 

Now everyone joined in reading my Peace Poem all together.

 

Time to relax, the children enjoyed acting out for the camera.

They love the little gifts from us, hand made bronze chokers from Thailand.

 

 

Time to say good bye!!!!!  We will meet again soon 🙂 🙂 🙂

 Thank you very much!!  We had a good time and will forever remember our time together.

 John Watts and Ing-On Vibulbhan-Watts

Sunday, October 15, 2017

Go to the top