DOCSLIB.ORG

73-1892 ) Stephen Charles Wiesenfeld, Etc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
73-1892 ) Stephen Charles Wiesenfeld, Etc LIBRARY c' SUPREME COURT, U. S. WASHINGTON, D. a 20543 In the Supreme Court of tfje Untteb States CASPAR W. WEINBERGER, SECRETARY ) OF HEALTH, EDUCATION and WELFARE, ) ) Appellant, ) ) vs. ) No. 73-1892 ) STEPHEN CHARLES WIESENFELD, ETC. ) a: Ic r'-o CXD '■n rri ;n ;r-tni - rr! o s -o m t—i co0 — 00 Xa ~n so ^ n ,7-1 cj w £><= Washington, D.C. on January 20, 1975 Pages 1 thru 37 Duplication or copying of this transcript by photographic, electrostatic or other facsimile means is prohibited under the order form agreement. HOOVER REPORTING COMPANY, INC. Official 'Reporters Washington, D. C. 5 46-6666 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES — — — — — — — — “-X CASPAR W. WEINBERGER, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION and WELFARE, : Appellant v. No. 73-1892 STEPHEN CHARLES WIESENFELD, ETC. x Washington, D. C. Monday, January 20, 1975 The above-entitled matter came on for argument at 1:13 oTclock p.m. BEFORE: WARREN E. BURGER, Chief Justice of the United States WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, JR., Associate Justice POTTER STEWART, Associate 0‘ustlce BYRON F- T,IHITF A — iate Justice ^MARSHALL, Associate Justice HARRY A. BLACKMUN, Associate Justice LEWIS F. POWELL, JR., Associate Justice WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, Associate Justice APPEARANCES: KEITH A. JONES, ESQ., Office of the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. 20530 For Appellant MRS. RUTH BADER GINSBURG, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, 22 East 40th Street, New York, Nex* York 10016 For Appellee 2 CONTENTS ORAL ARGUMENT OF: PAGE: KEITH A. JONES, ESQ., For Appellant 3 MRS. RUTH BADER GINSBURG, For Appellee 19 REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF: KEITH A. JONES, ESQ. 35 3 PROCEEDINGS HR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER: We will hear arguments next in Wo. 73-1892, Weinberger against Wiesenfeld. Mr. Jones, you may proceed whenever you are ready. ORAL ARGUMENT OF KEITH A. JONES, ESQ. ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT HR. JONES: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: This cases involves a claim of sex discrimination under the Social Security Act. Section 202(G) of that Act provides for the payments of benefits to certain widowed mothers. There is no comparable provision under the Act for payment of benefits under the Act to widowed fathers. The Appellee in this case is a widowed father who claims that he is constitutionally entitled to payment of benefits on the same basis as if he were a widowed mother. It is the Government’s position, as I will elaborate on at some length later, that this statute, like the property tax exemption in favor of widows in Kahn against Shevln, serves the permissible legislative objective of ameliorating the harsh economic consequences of economic job discrimination against women and that it should be sustained on that basis. A description of the operation of the Act is 4 essential to the understanding of this case. The benefits payable under Section 202(G) are paid out on account of the Social Security account of the deceased wage earner. The widowed mother receives equal to three-quarters of the primary insurance benefit that the deceased husband would have received had he lived and retired, reduced 50 cents for each dollar that the widow earns in excess of $2,400 per year. Payments are made to the widowed mother so long as she has a minor child in her care and remains unmarried. Similar benefits are provided under the Act for the child of a deceased wage earner. The child receives benefits on the basis of the Social Security account of his or her deceased parent whether or not the parent is the father or the mother. It makes no difference. But there is no provision under the Act for the payment of benefits to widowed fathers under the age of 60 on the basis of the account of their deceased wives. The Appellee in this case is a young, unemployed widower. After the death of his wife, his child began receiving benefits based upon her Social Security account. He, hox\rever was not entitled to benefits. By "he" I mean the Appellee was not entitled to benefits himself under the Act. In view of this, he brought present suit for declaratory and Injunctive relief, contending that he was constitutionally entitled to a distribution of benefits on the same basis as if he were a widow rather than a widower. A three-judge court was convened. The court determined that all sex-based classifications are inherently suspect under this Court's two-tiered Equal Protection analysis that it has applied in recent years. The court analyzed the statute, concluded that it did not serve a compelling governmental interest and, accordingly, the court held the statute unconstitutional and ordered the payment of benefits to the Appellee as if he were a widow. The court stayed its order pending this appeal and the case is now here on the Government's direct appeal. At the outset, I think it can be said that the District Court clearly erred in applying the compelling; governmental interest standard of review. It has become clear in this Court's decision in Kahn against Sheyin and, last week, in Schlesinger against Ballard, that sex-based classifications are not inherently suspect. They are not subject to justification only on the basis of a so-called "governmental interest." They are not invalid per se. This is not to suggest that the traditional permissive rational basis standard of review is fully 6 appropriate in all sex discrimination cases. Sex-based classifications, we believe, do merit close judicial scrutiny and they have received it by this Court in the past. In Frontiero against Richardson and Reed against Reed, this Court struck down sex classifications that merely served the purpose of administrative convenience. Thus the Court has applied a standard of review which involves close scrutiny, but scrutiny which is not so strict as to be inevitably fatal. The rule that the Court seems to be applying is simply that sex-based classifications must rest on some substantial reasonable basis or, as Chief Justice Burger said in the Reed opinion, upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation. As I will now show, the statute here in question easily meets that test. Appellee’s principal attack on this statute is, curiously enough, not from the point of View of the widower who has been denied benefits, but rather from the point of view of the female wage earner who, it is alleged, is denied Social Security coverage for her spouse that would have been granted to a male wage earner. The Appellee’s argument proceeds syllogistically. 7 First, the Appellee analogizes the payment of Social Security taxes to the purchase of private insurance coverage. Then the Appellee contends that female wage earners are not granted the right to purchase the same insurance coverage that a male wage earner purchases for his spouse under the system and, Appellee concludes, that is discrepancy in treatment, is a discrepancy in insurance coverage, it is impermissible. We believe there are two fatal flaws to this chain of reasoning. First, the analogy to private insurance schemes is itself fundamentally erroneous. As this Court noted in Flemming against Nestor, the Social Security Act comprehends a scheme, not of private but of social insurance under which benefits are distributed and coverage provided, in large part, under the basis of probable need rather than on the basis of strict — rather than strictly on the basis of the contributions that the insured wage earner has paid. Even accepting, for the moment, the private insurer paradigm on which Appellee relies, we think it is nevertheless clear that the female wage earner is not entitled to any additional insurance coverage under the Act, that the female wage earner has not been disadvantaged in any way. As we pointed out on pages 21 and 22 of our brief, 8 female wage earners, under the Social Security system, pay in only 28 percent of all Social Security taxes whereas 3^ percent of the benefits paid out of the system are paid out on the basis of the Social Security account of female wage- earners . Now, I am not tslicing about the benefits that are paid to women. I am talking about the benefits that are paid out solely on the basis of the women's accounts as workers. Now, this means that the Social Security system is already out of actuarial balance in favor of the female wage earner as against the male wage earner. If my rough arithmetical calculations are correct, right now, the female wage earner receives 33 percent greater coverage under the Act in terms of dollars than does the male wage earner. To grant the additional insurance coverage for which Appellee contends here would simply further tilt the scales in favor of the female wage earner as against her male counterpart. QUESTION: How do you account for the existing disparity? MR. JONES: I think, in large part, the disparity flows from the fact that women have longer life expectancies and that their retirement benefits are spread out over a 9 longer period of time. It may also be attributal in part to the fact that lower wage earners are entitled to somewhat greater return under the Act than are higher wage earners and women, statistically, are lower wage earners. I think for those two reasons, and I’m not sure which is more important, women do receive, on the basis of their accounts, far greater return than do men. And our position with respect to this argument, this insurance coverage argument by the Appellee, is that to grant further coverage, to further tilt the scales in favor of women, obviously would not serve the purposes of the Equal Protection Clause and it therefore seems to us that Appellee's insurance coverage argument simply reduces to the complaint that Appellee’s individual wife, as a wage earner, unlike the average female wage earner, has been somehow disadvantaged, that the payments made on the basis of her account are in some sense constitutionally insuffi­ cient .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lessons Learned from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
    LESSONS LEARNED FROM JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG Amanda L. Tyler* INTRODUCTION Serving as a law clerk for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the Supreme Court’s October Term 1999 was one of the single greatest privileges and honors of my life. As a trailblazer who opened up opportunities for women, she was a personal hero. How many people get to say that they worked for their hero? Justice Ginsburg was defined by her brilliance, her dedication to public service, her resilience, and her unwavering devotion to taking up the Founders’ calling, set out in the Preamble to our Constitution, to make ours a “more perfect Union.”1 She was a profoundly dedicated public servant in no small measure because she appreciated just how important her role was in ensuring that our Constitution belongs to everyone. Whether as an advocate or a Justice, she tirelessly fought to dismantle discrimination and more generally to open opportunities for every person to live up to their full human potential. Without question, she left this world a better place than she found it, and we are all the beneficiaries. As an advocate, Ruth Bader Ginsburg challenged our society to liber- ate all persons from the gender-based stereotypes that held them back. As a federal judge for forty years—twenty-seven of them on the Supreme Court—she continued and expanded upon that work, even when it meant in dissent calling out her colleagues for improperly walking back earlier gains or halting future progress.2 In total, she wrote over 700 opinions on the D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • This Transcript Was Exported on Sep 24, 2020 - View Latest Version Here
    This transcript was exported on Sep 24, 2020 - view latest version here. support message: This podcast is supported by the Walton Family Foundation. The Walton Family Foundation is at its core, a family led foundation, working to create access to opportunity for people and communities. The foundation partners with others to make a difference in K-12 education, the environment and its home region of Northwest Arkansas in the Arkansas Mississippi Delta. Learn more at waltonfamilyfoundation.org. Tricia Johnson: It's Aspen Ideas to Go from the Aspen Institute. I'm Trisha Johnson. Today we're featuring a conversation with Supreme Court Associate Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg from our archives. She died Friday. Ginsburg served as the second woman on the nation's highest court and was a champion of justice and steadfast advocate for civil and human rights. Her musical love was opera, yet her late in life status as a powerful cultural icon to a younger generation is more akin to a rockstar than a diva. Tricia Johnson: In 2018, a law student dubbed her the notorious RBG and the moniker consumed the internet and popular culture. Her wit and playful sense of humor are on full display in this conversation. Ruth Bader Ginsburg: And sad for me, I am a monotone. So I sing in only two places, one is the shower and the other is my dreams. Tricia Johnson: Aspen Ideas to Go brings you compelling conversations from the Aspen Institute. Today's show features Ginsburg speaking to the Aspen Wye Fellows in 2017 about her book, My Own Words.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
    VOLUME 134 JANUARY 2021 NUMBER 3 © 2021 by The Harvard Law Review Association MEMORIAM: JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG The editors of the Harvard Law Review respectfully offer this collec- tion of tributes to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Brenda Feigen∗ Ruth Bader Ginsburg changed all our lives by profoundly influenc- ing the law that had encouraged sex discrimination in the United States for centuries. I am writing now in tribute to her. In the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court ruled that women had neither the right to practice law1 nor the right to vote.2 In the mid- twentieth century, the Court approved “beneficial” practices by states making women’s service on juries optional3 and approved Michigan’s law preventing women from working in bars unless a male relative was present when they were working.4 In 1970, while some of us were joining the call of the women’s liber- ation movement to march in protest of outrageous sex discrimination, Ruth and her husband Marty, a tax lawyer, decided to represent Charles Moritz, who lived alone with his elderly mother and had tried to obtain a tax deduction for wages paid to her caregiver.5 The Tax Court had said that type of deduction was available only “to a woman, a widower ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ∗ J.D. 1969, Harvard Law School. Ms. Feigen directed the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project with then-Professor Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was National Vice President for Legislation of NOW and a cofounder of the National Women’s Political Caucus and of Ms. Magazine. She au- thored Not One of the Boys: Living Life as a Feminist (2000), republished in electronic format twenty years later with a new edition forthcoming.
    [Show full text]
  • The Remarkable Ruth Bader Ginsburg" Written by Rudy Carmenaty, 20
    10 • November 2018 • Nassau Lawyer Criminal Law - More than dust Notorious: The Remarkable Ruth Bader Ginsburg On October 1, 2018, the United tribute to society based upon their indi­ States Supreme Court began its 2018- vidual talents and capacities." 13 2019 term. Although Chief Justice John The legal principle announced by Roberts, as is customary, occupied the this case rested on the bedrock of the center chair, the center of much of the half-dozen cases she had litigated during nation's attention was on Associate the 1970s. Her decision even cites the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And not first case she had ever argued before necessarily for any reason having to do the high court in 1973: Frontiero u. with the workings of the Court. Richardson. 14 Putting aside Another element of her appeal rests the notable with her affectionate comradery with the example of Wil­ late Antonin Scalia. A judicial odd cou­ liam 0. Douglas, ple, she is a liberal Democrat and he was Supreme Court a conservative Republican. She is Jewish justices are usual­ and he was Catholic. She believes the ly unrecognizable Constitution adapts to changing times as public figures. and he was an originalist. Yet both Ruth Bader Gins­ shared a passion for opera and a gift for burg, however, friendship that had nothing to do with has proven to be either partisan politics or ideology. the exception. After Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Rudy Carmenaty Twenty-five years retired, Justice Ginsburg was the sole after Justice Ginsx woman on the Court until the appoint­ burg joined th'e ment of Sonya Sotomayor.
    [Show full text]
  • Monday-December-31-2018.Pdf
    TONIGHT Rain. Low of 36. Search for The Westfield News The WestfieldNews Search for The Westfield News Westfield350.com The WestfieldNews Serving Westfield, Southwick, and surrounding Hilltowns “TIME IS THE ONLY WEATHER CRITIC WITHOUT TONIGHT AMBITION.” Partly Cloudy. JOHN STEINBECK THE WESTFIELD NEWS WILL NOT PUBLISH Low of 55. www.thewestfieldnews.com Search for The Westfield News Westfield350.comWestfield350.org The WestfieldNews NEW YEAR’S DAY. TUES., JAN. 1, 2019. Serving Westfield, Southwick, and surrounding Hilltowns “TIME IS THE ONLY WEATHERVOL. 86 NO. 151 TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2017 75 cents VOL.87 NO. 311 MONDAY, DECEMBER 31, 2018 CRITIC75 Cents WITHOUT TONIGHT AMBITION.” Partly Cloudy. JOHN STEINBECK Low of 55. www.thewestfieldnews.com YEAR IN REVIEW VOL. 86 NO. 151 TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2017 75 cents Gateway Hilltowns look to the future By AMY PORTER Correspondent HILLTOWNS – The Gateway hilltowns of Blandford, Chester, Huntington, Middlefield, Montgomery and Russell continued to work together in 2018 to improve their future outlook, overcoming some significant roadblocks they Residents at Russell Annual Town had been facing for years. Meeting prepare to take historic First, all six towns voted at annu- vote. (Photo by Amy Porter) Westfield Post al town meetings to change the reduced by almost half. 124 players funding formula for their above David Tirrell One of the conditions DESE had minimum assessments to the imposed on the Gateway hilltowns ’18 SPORTS YEAR-IN-REVIEW: (8) and Paul Gateway School district, with per- Shibley (19) cel- to allow the change, was the need to mission from the Massachusetts update their regional agreement to ebrate a District Department of Elementary and 1/2/3 champion- be in compliance with One Person, Secondary Education (DESE).
    [Show full text]
  • Hon. Ruth Bader Ginsburg Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States
    Judicial Profile PHIL SCHATZ Hon. Ruth Bader Ginsburg Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States On Nov. 16, 2009, the Foundation of the Federal Bar Asso- ciation made Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg an Honorary Life Fellow in a well-attended ceremony in the West Conference Room of the United States Supreme Court Building. After making brief remarks, Justice Ginsburg surprised the assem- bled lawyers by opening the floor for questions. Following an embarrassed pause—it is a rare talent to render a room of lawyers speechless—Justice Ginsburg fielded a wide variety of questions with the same candor and humor that made her what President Clinton has called “the Thurgood Marshall of the women’s rights movement.” In connection with the ceremony, Justice Ginsburg instilled both a love of reading and a drive to do the consented to being profiled for The Federal Lawyer. best she could with whatever talents God gave her. She asked that the profile focus on the struggle for Celia made sure Justice Ginsburg did her homework equal citizenship stature for men and women. Because and practiced her piano and regularly took her to a of her heavy work schedule, she also asked that the public library branch located over a Chinese restau- profile be drawn from publicly available writings and rant, creating a permanent association between read- interviews as well as Fred Strebeigh’s highly recom- ing and the smell of Chinese food. mended book, Equal: Women Reshape American Law, Celia was diagnosed with cervical cancer the year published last year by W. W.
    [Show full text]
  • Movie Review: ‘On the Basis of Sex’
    Movie Review: ‘On the Basis of Sex’ NEW YORK — From “On the Basis of Sex” (Focus) one learns that even though a tax case may be destined to serve as a landmark for equal treatment under the law — as well as a breakthrough for future Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Felicity Jones) — it’s nearly impossible to keep stodginess at bay. When a film’s dramatic highlight is not the big federal appeals court drama at the end, but rather the preceding moot-court scene as the lawyers prepare, it had better have some compelling dialogue and performances. This film does not. However, director Mimi Leder and screenwriter Daniel Stiepleman (Ginsburg’s nephew) have ameliorated these deficiencies somewhat through discussions of legal morality and government lawyers harrumphing about “radical social change.” For a tax-law drama, it’s adequate. Midway through, Mel Wulf (Justin Theroux), the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, snaps at Ginsburg, “Morality does not win the day, look around you!” Later, as she prepares her arguments — the delivery of which she eventually shared with her husband, Martin, played by Armie Hammer — Mel exhibits his own latent chauvinism by inquiring, “Would it kill you to smile?” Moral courage does, of course, prevail, and the film is an unapologetically heroic narrative correct in its historical details even when the dialogue lurches into wooden cliches, lacking only a college fight song to pump up emotion at its conclusion. There are no elements definitively precluding mature adolescents, although they’re likely to regard the film more as a homework assignment than a piece of entertainment.
    [Show full text]
  • They, Them, and Theirs Contents
    THEY, THEM, AND THEIRS Jessica A. Clarke CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 896 I. NONBINARY GENDER ............................................................................................................ 904 A. The Diversity of Nonbinary Gender Identities ............................................................ 905 B. Reasons for Bias Against Nonbinary People ................................................................ 910 C. Convergences and Divergences with Other Rights Struggles ..................................... 914 1. Feminist Arguments .................................................................................................... 915 2. Transgender Rights ...................................................................................................... 921 3. Sexual Orientation ...................................................................................................... 925 4. Intersex Variations ...................................................................................................... 928 5. Antiracist and Postcolonial Struggles ....................................................................... 930 II. A CONTEXTUAL APPROACH TO NONBINARY GENDER RIGHTS ............................... 933 A. Against Universal Definitions of Sex and Gender ....................................................... 933 B. Regulatory Models for Nonbinary Gender Rights ......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ON the BASIS of SEX Written by DANIEL STIEPLEMAN
    ON THE BASIS OF SEX Written By DANIEL STIEPLEMAN 1 INT. HOTEL BATHROOM - DAY Concealer, lipstick, mascara on the counter. RUTH BADER GINSBURG (36) is applying blush. When she’s finished, she considers her reflection. She puts on A GOLD, SUNBURST PIN. And tries a smile. ..... But it looks forced. She drops it. A breath. And she tries again. A different smile. And... RUTH May it please the court. Not right yet. A smile. And... RUTH (CONT’D) Your honors and may it please the court... That’s not it either... RUTH (CONT’D) May it please the court. She looks herself in the eye one more time. CUT TO: MAIN TITLE -- OVER BLACK: ON THE BASIS OF SEX HEAR: Driving, martial music. Horns and drums. It’s the Crimson fight song “Ten Thousand Men of Harvard.” AS A MALE CHORUS joins... EXT. AUSTIN HALL - DAY Well groomed white MEN (20s) march through a quad. Into an impressive building with columned arches. “Ten Thousand Men of Harvard want victory today....” They’re the future leaders of America. And in their well-cut dark suits, with their cocky grins, it’s clear they know it. “For they know that o’er old Eli, fair Harvard holds sway...” But amidst the pants and loafers -- GLIMPSE: a pair of high- heeled shoes, a skirt swaying, shoulder-length brown hair. “So then we’ll conquer all old Eli’s men...” 2 INT. AUSTIN HALL - DAY AS THEY ENTER AN AUDITORIUM: She slows her step. Letting the men pass... IT’S RUTH (23 here). Petite, lean and striking.
    [Show full text]
  • The Idolization of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
    Macalester College DigitalCommons@Macalester College Political Science Honors Projects Political Science Department September 2019 Notoriously Ruthless: The Idolization of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lucille Moran Macalester College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/poli_honors Part of the American Politics Commons, Courts Commons, Judges Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Law and Society Commons, and the Other Film and Media Studies Commons Recommended Citation Moran, Lucille, "Notoriously Ruthless: The Idolization of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg" (2019). Political Science Honors Projects. 80. https://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/poli_honors/80 This Honors Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Political Science Department at DigitalCommons@Macalester College. It has been accepted for inclusion in Political Science Honors Projects by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Macalester College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Notoriously Ruthless: The Idolization of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lucille Moran Advised by Professor Patrick Schmidt Political Science Honors Project 1 May 2019 2 Abstract It is now a fixture of mainstream commentary in the United States that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has become a popular idol on the political left. Yet, while Justice Ginsburg’s image and story has reached an unprecedented level of valorization and even commercialization, scholars have yet to give sustained attention
    [Show full text]
  • Struck by Stereotype: Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Pregnancy Discrimination As Sex Discrimination
    SIEGEL & SIEGEL IN FINAL 12/1/2009 6:13:23 PM STRUCK BY STEREOTYPE: RUTH BADER GINSBURG ON PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION AS SEX DISCRIMINATION NEIL S. SIEGEL† REVA B. SIEGEL†† It was always recognition that one thing that conspicuously distinguishes women from men is that only women become pregnant; and if you subject a woman to disadvantageous treatment on the basis of her pregnant status, which was what was happening to Captain Struck, you would be denying her equal treatment under the law.1 INTRODUCTION This is an attempt at recovery. This Essay hopes to call attention to then-Professor Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 1972 merits brief2 in Struck v. Secretary of Defense.3 The brief has been underappreciated in part because the Supreme Court of the United States eventually declined Copyright © 2010 by Neil S. Siegel & Reva B. Siegel. † Professor of Law and Political Science, Duke University School of Law; Law Clerk to Justice Ginsburg, October Term 2003. †† Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Professor of Law, Yale Law School. We thank Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for illuminating comments on this Essay, and Natalie Bedoya and Jennifer Bennett for able research assistance. 1. Nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 103d Cong. 206 (1993) (statement of Judge Ginsburg) [hereinafter Ginsburg Hearings]. 2. See Brief for the Petitioner, Struck v. Sec’y of Def., 409 U.S. 1071 (1972) (No. 72-178), 1972 WL 135840. Melvin Wulf, Joel Gora, Brenda Feigen Fasteau, and Robert Czeisler also signed the brief.
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Claus Is Coming Through Town
    MONDAY, DECEMBER 24, 2018 Santa Claus is coming through town Lynn’s 31st annual Santa Parade on Christmas Eve will wind its way for 22 miles from Boston Street to Avon Street. More than 100 oats will gather at 5 p.m. on Summer Street in Austin Square. At 5:15 p.m. it converges on Boston, At 6:30 p.m. from State Street the pa- At 8 p.m. they follow Stanwood Road, At 9:15 p.m., the parade is at Lynn eld 1 Myrtle and Holyoke streets and O’Cal- 4 rade takes a right onto Market Street 7 Fernwood Avenue, Chase Road and Eu- 10 Street in Wyoma Square. laghan Way. and a left onto Broad and Lewis streets clid Avenue to Broadway. at Lafayette Park. At 5:30 p.m. it will reach Walnut Street, At 6:45 p.m. it will be at Fayette, Essex At 8:30 p.m., the parade is at Jenness At 9:30 p.m., they are at Broadway en 2 Linwood Road and North Franklin 5 and Chestnut streets. 8 Street which becomes Range Avenue 11 route to Boston Street and the Lynn- Street and take a right onto Boston and and becomes Den Quarry and Cedar gate Plaza, where the parade ends. Cottage streets at McDonough Square Brook roads. at 5:45 p.m. At 6 p.m. it makes an appearance on At 7:15 p.m. join the parade at Western At 9 p.m. they meet at York and Casco 3 Western Avenue in Market Square at 6 Avenue, Chatham and Lewis streets, 9 roads.
    [Show full text]