David Cole wrote in The New York Review of Books, with the exception of Thurgood Marshall, no Supreme Court justice did more to realize the Constitution’s promise of “equal protection of the law” than Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Where Marshall, as director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, succeeded in dismantling Jim Crow segregation, Ginsburg, as the first director of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project, persuaded the Supreme Court that women and men, long treated differently under the law, must be accepted as equals.
Neither acted alone; they carried the torches of the
civil rights and women’s rights movements, respectively. Their courtroom
arguments were buoyed by broader political currents. But both achieved
far-reaching, historic changes in constitutional law. And both did it
incrementally, through careful, painstaking work, aimed at appealing to those
not already with them. As Ginsburg said, “Fight for the things that you care
about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you.”
In the last years of her life, Ginsburg became an
unlikely celebrity. RBG T-shirts, mugs, earrings, bobblehead dolls, workout
gear, and books all became best-sellers. In 2018, both a documentary, RBG,
and a Hollywood feature film, On the Basis of Sex, appeared, to popular
and critical acclaim. Chief Justice John Roberts quipped, at the unveiling of a
portrait of Ginsburg, that his children asked him why he, too, didn’t have a
rapper’s moniker. She deserved every bit of the praise. One of only nine women
in a class of about five hundred at Harvard Law School, she broke many
barriers, and her work made it possible for young women today to take for
granted that they cannot be denied admission, jobs, or other benefits simply
because of their sex. That’s radical.
But she was about the unlikeliest radical you’d ever
meet. Shy to the point of awkward in personal interactions, she spoke quietly
but with evident conviction and integrity. She picked her words carefully,
whether in briefs, arguments, questions from the bench, dissents, or
conversations.
As a justice, too, she refrained from bomb-throwing.
On a court dominated by conservatives, she frequently found herself in dissent.
But unlike some of her more rhetorical colleagues—in particular, Justice
Antonin Scalia—her dissents did not aim barbs at the majority, but instead
coolly, painstakingly, and effectively dissected the ruling’s errors, and often
placed her emphasis on areas of agreement and avenues the majority decision
left open.
RBG achieved real change. She entered the law at a
time when men wielded virtually all political and economic power, women were
barely taken seriously in the legal profession or by the law itself, and the
statute books were shot through with sex-based laws. She used her skills to
elevate the status of women in the United States forever. The world she has
left behind was transformed by her work. But at every turn, she pursued change
methodically, with care and attention to her own imperative that one must
always seek to bring others along. Her career illustrates that one can be
radical and incrementalist at the same time; indeed, as she argued, it may be
the only way to achieve enduring change.
She wasn’t always cautious, of course. In 1972, she
made her first argument before the Supreme Court in a case challenging
a federal rule that granted automatic spousal benefits to wives of members of
the military, but not to husbands of women who served in the few positions then
open to them. Facing the nine male justices, Ginsburg closed her argument by
quoting the suffragist and abolitionist Sarah Grimké:
In asking the Court to declare sex a suspect
criterion, amicus urges a position forcibly stated in 1837 by Sarah Grimké,
noted abolitionist and advocate of equal rights for men and women. She spoke
not elegantly, but with unmistakable clarity. She said, “I ask no favor for my
sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.”
In response, Chief Justice Warren Burger, sounding a
bit at a loss, could muster only “Thank you, Mrs. Ginsburg.” The court ruled in
her favor, 8-1.
To read more CLICK HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment