她为我们开启了一个时代 This is the beginning
Radical social change!
When I was in law school, there was no women’s bathroom, It is amazing to me now that we never complained. Not because we were timid, we were just astounded to be in law school at all.
A hundred years ago, Myra Bradwell wanted to be a lawyer. She had fulfilled the requirements for the lllinois bar but she was not allowed to P-ractice because she was a woman. An injustice she asked the Supreme Court to correct. Lllinon’s was to confident of victory, they did not even send a lawyer to argue their side. They were right, she lost. That was the first time someone went to court to challenge his or her prescribed gender role. A hundred years ago.
Radical social change.
65years ago, when women in Oregon wanted to work overtime and make more money as men could, the court looked to the precedent in Bradwell and said no. So then there were two precedents. Then three, then four, and so on. And you can draw a direct line from Myra Bradwell to Gwendolyn Hoyt, told then 10 years ago, she was not entitled to a jury of her peers. That is the legacy the government asks you to uphold today. You are being urged to protect the culture and traditions and morality of an America that no longer exists.
A generation ago, my students would have been arrested for indecency for wearing the clothes that they do. Years ago I would not have the right to stand before you. There are 178 laws that differentiate on the basis of sex . Count them. The government did the favor of compiling them for you and while you are at it. I urge you to read them. They are abstacles to our children’s aspirations.
You are asking us to overturn a century of precedent?
I am asking you to set a new precedent as courts have done before when the law is outdated.
But in those cases, the courts had a clear constitutional handle. The world women dose not appear even in the US Constitution.
Not does the word freedom, your honor.
The principal purpose of Section 214 is not to protect women not to discriminate against men. It is to provide caregivers the opportunity to work out side the home. Therefore as the Supreme Court did in Levy V Louisiana, this court should fix the law most in line with the legislate intent. Extend the deduction to never married men. Help all caregivers equally.
Charles Moritz was well-raised to be the sort of man we should all hope our sons will become Charlie deserves our admiration.
Not only was he taken on the burden of caring for his very strong willed mother, when no one would expect it of him but in doing so, he has surpassed the limitations the rest of us and our laws seek to force upon him.
We are not asking you to change the country, that is already happened without any courts’ permission. We are asking you to protect the right of the country to change.
Our sons and daughters are barred by law from opportunities based on assumptions about their abilities. How will they never disprove these assumptions if laws like Section 214 are allowed to stand?
We all must take these laws on, one by one, for as long as it takes, for their sakes, you have the power to set the precedent,that will get us started.
You can right this wrong.
We rest our case on our briefs and argument and ask that you reverse the tax court’s decision.
还有感动的点，就是电影里，Marty 得了癌症存活率只有5%， Ruth “we are never giving up. Keep working. Keep studying. Jane will have her father. And you will be a lawyer. I m spending my life with you, Martin Ginsberg ”
现在我自己疫情被困在国外， 每天忧心忡忡无心学习，整个生活步调都有被打乱的感觉，真的应该向Ruth学习， 就算要死了，我们也要保持原本的生活节奏，一切都会挺过去。
“Grandma Celia died when Mom was about your age. But right up to her dying breath, they would read together, and debate ideas, and she d make mom question everything. Jane Mom isn’t bullying you. She doesn’t want you to feel small. She wants to share what her mother taught her. That s how she shows her heart.”