Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 1933-2020

Remembering the life and legacy of the second woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court.

By
347

The workweek was just about done last night when my phone started pinging with the news that Ruth Bader Ginsburg had passed away. Even though Ginsburg was 87 and had battled cancer many times … shocking doesn’t begin to describe it. RBG’s previous recoveries had given her an air of invincibility, for one. And then there are the political implications.

In fact, my first reaction to the news was, well, unprintable, because the vacancy on the Supreme Court will add tumult to an already chaotic election. But Ginsburg deserves to be remembered for her accomplishments, for her long service to the court, and for the way she fought for other women to have the same opportunities she did. 

My friend and former colleague Dahlia Lithwick has a lovely tribute, focusing on that last point. “I never heard her give a public speech in which she didn’t thank, by name, the allies, champions, fighters, of whom she inevitably saw herself as a beneficiary; she cast herself as someone lucky enough to be in a long line of champions and fighters, and also as someone set and determined to pay it forward.”

At the Washington Post, former clerk Edith Roberts shared some personal memories, including about how she met her husband while clerking for Ginsburg, and how supportive RBG was of those who worked for her. “This slow talker, ruthless editor and die-hard romantic wanted to make sure that every woman could find her best place, whether in a military-academy classroom, on the floor of a factory or behind the wheel of a minivan.”

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
347
By
Comments (347)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Bill Nelson

    So, B1G teams get tested daily. The rest of us cannot. These athletes get very special treatment. If they get paid, does that stop? Not likely.
    And Ohio State players have been well paid for some time.

    Collapse
  2. David Coggin

    This is my first comment on a Dispatch post, so I want to start by saying how much I have enjoyed the writings and podcasts.
    I'm writing because I take issue with your unsupported statement, "Even in “normal times,” there are legitimate concerns about the way universities take advantage of the unpaid labor of young men to fund the athletic department budget."
    This is a new idea that somehow the college athletic scholarship program is a machine for oppression. Restricting the discussion to football players in the Power 5 conferences, they receive support for all direct costs and a monthly stipend intended to cover "the full cost of attendance" at school. The new narrative centers on the tremendous value the players add to the school, but disregards the tremendous value the student athlete receives. It's easier to quantify the added value to the school than the value added to the student, but they need each other and both prosper significantly.
    I follow Auburn sports closely and know more about the situation there, but I believe it's similar at most others. College football players are provided a three to five year period to develop their football skills while acquiring a college degree. Those that are good enough have an opportunity to become wealthy in the NFL. Most aren't good enough, but will hopefully complete a college education that will take them somewhere. For many of those kids, it's an opportunity they would have never had without their football skills. While those kids are "funding the athletic budget" they learn more than the average student. Most finish their college degree. I think the most important thing they gain is learning and living discipline and citizenship from the college coaches and staff. That is seriously underappreciated. I think if you ask most program graduates they'll tell you it was a life changing experience. I believe they'll tell you they think they got more than they gave, and they gave a lot.
    The NFL is free to create a minor league. Baseball and to some extent basketball exist with significant college and minor league programs. I say keep college, college.

    Collapse
  3. Mary Stine

    Thank you Rachael for a heartfelt memoir to RBG. I am very happy to see that many conservatives appreciate Justice Ginsberg. In an ironic twist of fate, it may be the tireless work and success of Justice Ginsberg that has paved the way for more conservative women's voices to be heard and elected, along with progressives.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      TimNYC

      I don't think that's ironic at all. I think RBG would have liked that.

      I know a lot of liberal and progressive women — feminists, all — and they're all happy to see more conservative women getting their voices heard, even if they don't agree with them on the issues. (And I'd agree with them, as well. More conservative women having their voices heard is definitely a good thing. :) )

      Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Ms. SSM

    I’m sad she died. I really admired her as a person. I’m also sad because her death has ended a bit of hope I had for us. The coming nomination fight will drastically increase polarization no matter what happens. I’m trying now to resign myself to a future in America I was hoping we could reverse and avoid. I just don’t see a good path forward. The Left has never been particularly animated about the SC. I certainly haven’t. As a lawyer I also know that what we view as a partisan split is artificial. Most cases in front of the court are decided unanimously with the exception of a few key issues. Also much of what animates SC decisions is often resolved by legislation.

    But people aren’t going to see it like that. Everyone is acting as though the apocalypse is nigh. I feel like America is living the Yoda lines. "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

    It is what it is I guess. The parties are just too far apart and our political system was simply not designed to withstand this level of partisanship. We in the future will essentially have a parliamentary voting structure I expect. Crossing the aisle is done. I used to think Court packing was a terrible idea but now I’m fine with it. And I’m not exactly a blazing radical. It’s just a new uglier day and the whole thing is damn depressing.

    Collapse
    1. Mary Stine

      *sigh* yes, but..RBG herself noted that history showed that the previous political alignment of a justice mattered little once they were on the Supreme Court and were forced to reckon with the much broader spectrum of Americans. The justices were bound together by the Constitution and their own ethics.
      I also think while some of the parties' faithful are "dug in" , so to speak, the greater number of Americans are, if not moderate or tolerant, not political. However, for the last 40 years at least, media has focused mostly on the most dramatic, outrageous and partisan voices.
      When was the last time you saw anyone interviewed, who identified as a moderate or at least spoke respectfully of the other side?? This has had the effect of driving many people away from even voting, let alone being involved in the larger process.
      I think it is time for those of us who are moderate, or at least tolerant and calm, to speak out more effectively.

      Collapse
  5. rob

    If the democrats are smart they will quickly approve any reasonable nominee. The path to Trump being reelected is another Brett Kavanaugh ordeal.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ms. SSM

      No I think it’s going to radicalize both sides no matter what. Which is ironic because the SC has never been a big motivator for the left. This will be the worst ugliest nomination ever.

      Collapse
    2. Peter

      Ugh the opposite happened during midterms. This would galvanize both sides. Plenty of Dems were outraged at the republicans.

      Politics always cuts both ways.

      Collapse
      1. rob

        Things are a lot tighter than the MSM would have you believe. RCP average for battleground states is 3.8+ to Biden. Margin of error is usually about 3. You slide a little bit and trump starts wining the battle grounds. People are just as tired of the dems bs as trumps. They should take this opportunity to prove they are better than trump if they want to win.

        Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Sad Trombone

    If/when the Democrats start moving to expand and pack the Court I think conservatives and moderates should respond with proposing an Article V convention to amend the Constitution on this issue - freeze the number of Justices at nine and have 18 or 21 year terms staggered to allow different Presidents equal chance of appointments.

    Collapse
    1. rob

      Im not sure I like freezing the max number. The court already has too much power and congresses ability to increase the size has always been a major check on SC's power.

      Collapse
    2. Peter

      Why would moderates be in board for that? And that would likely be after a democratic president.

      So they’d have to take the senate and presidency after.

      Term limits sound good. But republicans would never abandon life time judges.

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Mabus

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a woman of deep convictions and I mourn her passing. Her convictions were sometimes very different from mine and I often wished she were not on the Court. And this is a disastrous time for her to die, since she is likely to be replaced by a Trump hack rather than a principled conservative.

    All three of these things are true, and so I have extremely mixed feelings about this moment.

    Collapse
  8. Daddy

    “A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment,” Obama wrote. “The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle.” Obama. ; I ask of President Obama how did you pass the ACA law,?, You shoved it through the reconciliation process, please don’t lecture the public on “basic principles.” The left cannot be so Caustic and hateful then turn around and ask the world to be kind to it. Sociopathic. They only feel theIr own pain.

    Collapse
    1. Fudrock

      How were Trump’s tax cuts passed again? Budget reconciliation, yes?

      Collapse
      1. Daddy

        I get the point your making but be careful the power your give your supposed virtual Presidents, their virtues leave with them but the power you give them stay in office for future presidents to use and abuse.

        Collapse
        1. Fudrock

          Apologies, I'm perplexed. Yes, I grant that the wielding of executive power over the past century has distorted our government into an increasingly wobbly Jenga tower, but I attribute this to Congress' abdication of its duties as much as the Executives penchant for overreach (presently aided and abetted by the efforts of Bill Barr, so this penchant knows no party). After that, it's the quest for antecedents, which if fully unravelled, could take you back to the founding in many cases. But let's keep it contained to recent history and your example of the ACA, Obama's signature punching bag. Yes, the use of budget reconciliation was a dubious tactic to pass the law with a simple majority, which became necessary after the untimely (or timely) death of Ted Kennedy at which point the Democrats lost their 60 seat majority, and their 'mandate' devolved (worth remembering the "public option" died with Kennedy, and this would have been a very different law). That said, budget reconciliation was just that, a tactic, but it flew in the face of the spirit of the law and the institution, but it's not really an example of executive overreach, though I'm sure Obama heartily endorsed it, but rather Congress' failure to achieve or even attempt, compromise, and it worked so well, that it was used again for the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017, the use of which Trump heartily endorsed. It's worth noting that in both cases, the use of budget reconciliation required implicit compromises to both bills to fit the framework laid out by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. It's also worth noting that the law stipulates that this can only be done once a year, so it's at least not as abused as it could be. In years prior, it was used to pass Welfare reform and tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, worthy conservative causes (antecedents). Has it been abused to pass legislation that sidesteps a 60 vote majority in the Senate? Yes. If we don't like it, we should make Congress change the law (I'll take suggestions on how we can do this), but since we're on a continuum, let's keep playing. ACA passes by a hair through reconciliation, inflames tensions on the right (which would have happened regardless), Congress flips and effectively makes Obama a lame duck for the next 6 years (and a rigorous practitioner of executive fiat), which notably includes a limited ability to make judicial appointments, most notably, Merrick Garland, with another display of entirely legal gymnastics by McConnell that likely swung the election for Trump as decisively as anything in the race. These tactics were an absolute anathema to the spirit of the law and the institution, and they are again, but they are entirely legal. Given this stew of impropriety, where should I direct my fury?

          Collapse
  9. Daddy

    Don’t, never berate the dead. It’s bad form.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    So, re-reading the comments after this article was posted early in the day (had a great Saturday), makes me realize that boy am I fine with being unaligned at the moment to either political side. Maybe will change in the future I think, maybe even the near future but yikes.

    You all gonna burn down the house this election cycle, metaphorically. Pack the courts? McConnell is (insert x,y,z). RBG’s barely in the ground and some of the comments are mind blowing. She isn’t John C. Calhoun or Farrakhan people, and neither is Mitch McConnell.

    I just can’t understand why people never seem to want to admit that the problem isn’t just the other side, it’s also their side. Either at some point you all live and let live, forgive and move on, or this really is a game of power and one side must be completely crushed.

    I wonder if anyone can seriously keep up with all grievances of the past 30 years between both parties.

    Some of the comments are gross here. Sad, because most of the comments normally are not like this. I guess when the pressure is on and people think the fate of America is in the hands of one executive branch or supreme Court Justice vacancy in one election cycle, people go crazy. America is bigger and stronger than that. Take a deep breath.

    I’m checking out for the night and prepping for work. Hard pass on the comment sections for this article. Thank you to those who engaged in many of the comments and were civil.

    Oh, and if someone that was an American citizen passes and your first instinct is to criticize and say what perceived horrors they did, based on their ideology, instead of being respectful and doing that another day, the problem is you.

    Collapse
    1. Fudrock

      Nicely said, Victor. The Dispatch message boards are usually so civil, but I fear the state of this one is a bellwether. This couldn’t have happened at a worse time. As someone who’s desperate to heal these divides, the retrenchment and bomb throwing that this inspires on both sides is horrifying. Rest In Peace, Justice Ginsberg, your struggles are over. Let us pray for America.

      Collapse
    2. Mary Stine

      So well said, Victor. I try to see the good in everyone and whatever goodness comes from their sincere efforts. While I might not like all of the opinions by any of the SCOTUS justices,
      I am grateful for their work and believe they are trying as hard as humanly possible to be fair and just while interpreting the Constitution.
      Everyone of our presidents, being just human like all of us, has and will make mistakes while also doing some things right. May we all give as much credit where it is due as much as we give criticism. History will judge us all.

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      LindaL

      Amen.

      Collapse
Load More