Before Justice Ginsburg was on the supreme court she was a lawyer that fought largely for gender equality. She had many cases that she brought before the court that were to show large differences between mens and womens rights. Califano vs. Goldfarb is one of these gender equality cases. In Califano vs. Goldfarb, Lean Goldfard was a man whose wife had passed away. He tried to apply for survivor's benefits, which means he would be getting pay outs from his wife's social security. At this point in time, he was not able to receive these benefits. He was not able to receive these benefits since he was not living off at least half of his wife's income. At this time there were no restrictions for widows to claim these benefits. Lean was represented by RBG, she defended Lean and the court then found that the clause that the wife's income contribution was unconstitutional. This case took place in 1976, which just goes to show how long RBG has been fighting for gender equality in the eyes of the law.
My opinion on this case is that the ruling makes sense. Why should these widowers not be able to receive these benefits? This was an interesting case at the time since men were supposed to be the breadwinner. This made it easier for men that had recently lost their wife to receive extra income that would have pretty much been at widows fingerstips, all they would have had to do is file. This was a case that early in the fight for gender equality under the law.
Do you agree or disagree with the ruling of this case?
Why do you agree or disagree with the ruling?
If you would like to look further into this case here is the link https://www.oyez.org/justices/ruth_bader_ginsburg
Replies
Well done and I'm happy to see that you ended up getting a lot of replies. There are a few capitalization errors but outside of that, good job!
I agree with the ruling of this case as men should be able to get the same befits as women did. Just because he is a man doesn't mean he had alot of money or didn't have any financial issues. Although it was usually said that men bring home the money to women working at home, maybe that wasn't possibe for them and he had the right to apply for survivor benefits.
While many of RBG's more recent actions and cases, in my opinion, are a step in the wrong direction, I would definitely say that for a long time she was doing the right thing, fighting for freedom, and fighting for equal rights for woman.
Even though as a justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was very left leaning she had some cases that weren't as left leaning. What I mean is that, back in the 70's that fact this case was taken trial was more of a left leaning idea. So who knows what the future could look like.
I think that the ruling is fair because men should get the same benefits as women. It is simply not fair for men to not have the same benefits as women because of gender equality and the law should be the absolute when it comes to gender equality. Men still need financial help sometimes just because our wage is too low just like women can sometimes have that problem.
I agree with the ruling of this case. Although it is said that men are supposed to bring home the money and women are supposed to work at home, especially in the past, it really all depends on that couple's relationship and schedule. He had every right to apply for survivor's benefits. Even if he was the main income of the family, losing the money she used to bring home would be a crazy change to adjust to and he would need some financial support to go through that change.
I agree with you, who know the family's dynamic. Maybe his wife was making 49% of the family's income. If she made been making that large amount of family's income the widower stll would have been denided benefits because she wasn't making over half the income.
I agree with the ruling of this case because it is not fair that men didn't get the same benifits women did. Just because he is a man doesn't mean he has a lot of money or doesn't need help, they could have kids and they could need money to help them with the kids.
You brought up some really good points. At thsi point in time men were still seen as the main bread winners of the family. Also it could have been a lower income family before his wife passed away, and that little bit of income the wife had been bringing could have been what had it possible for them to pay bills.
I have to agree with the ruling of this case. I aboslutely think the widowers should be able to get the money because it was their husband or wife that made that money. Sometimes the widower is on disability and cannot work so the money their spouse made would help them. I think that RBG is such a great woman for trying to help so many people and fight for gender equality.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next