Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
RBG: A Notorious Movie?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been on the Supreme Court since 1993. She is experiencing a period of pop culture notoriety few justices–even Supreme Court justices–ever enjoy, no matter how impactful their work might be. As a feminist icon at home in the politics of the Left, she now graces t-shirts, coffee mugs, and dorm rooms under her catchy moniker: the Notorious RBG. She’s also the subject of a glossy documentary, which I decided to see with a way-more-progressive friend in the week of its release to the big screen.
Now, please understand, I do not describe myself as a feminist. I identify as a girl from the South who grew up in the Age of Reagan, which is a lot different from being a woman tied to Brooklyn who was born during the Great Depression. I went to state universities rather than elite institutions. I find talk of a “living Constitution” to be a necessary paving stone in the road to tyranny. I sincerely believe “the right to choose” is akin to “the right to murder.” And I hate opera. Like. Seriously hate opera. Yet I admire Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Why?
First, one has to recognize that women were treated as second-class citizens in the United States for literally centuries. While I balk at the idea that members of the fairer sex had no power in American society before the Women’s Rights Movement, it would be foolish to say they were allowed to develop all their talents outside of the home without serious impediments that had absolutely nothing to do with their abilities. In the 1970s, Ruth Bader Ginsburg helped change that reality per the cases she argued as a lawyer in front of the Supreme Court.
For example, per Frontiero v. Richardson (1973), she began to dismantle the idea that women do not deserve equal benefits for equal work, a discriminatory practice that seems to have been justified by the anachronistic belief that women are never primary breadwinners. In Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld (1975), she took on gender privilege when a man was blocked from receiving social security payments purely because of his sex, which means she has been intellectually consistent about wanting equal treatment for all. Even when reading rulings in which Ginsburg’s arguments do not sway me, I recognize this lady has shattered some thicker-than-her-glasses glass ceilings and worked hard to open avenues for women to reach their true potential. For this, I am grateful. For this, I was happy to pay homage by learning more in a matinee.
So evaluating the documentary, I really enjoyed some peeks into Ginsburg’s personal life. When she talked about how her husband was the first man she’d ever met who cared she had a mind, I wanted to go and hug her husband. I was as indignant as she was to learn about law firms that excluded her from hire despite a stellar academic record simply because her naughty bits didn’t dangle. Old photographs and home movies reveal Ginsburg was once a gorgeous woman, which doesn’t matter at all but was interesting to see. It seems her looks were ultimately neither an attribute or an impediment to her career. She helped raise two lovely children.
Apart from the personal notes about family though, I thought the documentary was especially worthwhile when highlighting the friendship RBG enjoyed with her professionally polar opposite, Antonin Scalia. Almost as “notorious” as she is, Scalia’s appearance elicited some groans from the audience watching the film, and I wondered how many of those viewers could actually articulate what exactly they found so egregious about the happy originalist who passed away so recently.
Ironically, the type of music I most despise in the world was in part what allowed two Supreme Court justices who respected each other’s intellectual prowess to discard any sense of “tribe” and become close friends, which is a beautiful thing. We need more of that sort of tolerance in today’s world. We need more of that seeking of common ground between fellow Americans.
Then there were the things that I thought the documentary… shaded.
For example, while Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been a trailblazer for women’s rights, she was not the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court. Though pointing out that Jimmy Carter raised many women to the bench, including RBG, the name of Ronald Reagan was never uttered in the documentary, and any homage to Sandra Day O’Connor was extremely muted.
As my progressive friend pointed out to me, however, this film is not about the Supreme Court at large but only Ruth.
Fair enough.
Watching clips from RBG’s confirmation hearing during the Clinton administration, I was struck by how very honest Ginsburg was about her views on abortion. She was explicit in lifting up her belief that a woman is sovereign over her body, no matter what other entities might be involved, and this is true even though she has also said in different forums that the ruling for Roe v. Wade used poor reasoning.
Orrin Hatch, then the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, is shown in the documentary affirming that holding political views he doesn’t like cannot preclude a justice from sitting on the bench. Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole also said at the time, “By any measure, she is qualified to become the Supreme Court’s ninth justice.” She was ultimately confirmed 96-3.
Having this flashback to the Clinton Era play out in front of me, I could not help but immediately think of a much different sort of interrogation undergone by Amy Coney Barrett in 2017. Dianne Feinstein announced from her perch on high that the “the dogma lives loudly” within Barrett because of religious beliefs that would never allow her to worship at the Left’s altar for abortion rights.
Though asserting she would never be in the position to rule on questions about Roe v. Wade while on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals–despite a stellar legal background full of major accomplishments–Barrett was finally confirmed in a relative squeaker vote of only 55-43. No one attacked her qualifications either, only her Catholicism. And the reason Democrats like Feinstein didn’t want her elevated to the 7th Circuit is that it puts her in a good position to be nominated for the Supreme Court if a justice like RBG finds it necessary to retire before Republicans lose control of the White House.
What am I to think of this?
After the long fight in which Ginsburg engaged to open up opportunities for women, Amy Coney Barrett is not the right kind of woman to be in a position of power–much less on a coffee mug–in the minds of some progressives? (To be sure, this sort of thing is exactly why I’m not a “feminist.”) I wish someone would ask RBG what she thought about that sort of flagrant display of bigotry by other public servants.
Regardless, overall I enjoyed seeing a documentary about an important Supreme Court justice and an impressive legal mind. Therefore, I would suggest this documentary to any of my friends, conservative and progressive alike. If going with someone from the “other side,” it may spark some important and interesting conversations. After all, my friend and I sat outside the cinema soaking up the sun and talking cordially about our different impressions of the documentary, politics, and the law for more than an hour afterward, which was extremely edifying.
In truth, I feel certain both Ginsburg and Scalia’s ghost would have most heartily approved of that exchange of ideas after the popcorn was gone. They certainly would have recognized the worth of the exercise of two Americans talking about real things.
Perhaps if my friend and I were capable of singing our opinions in soaring soprano voices, in funny costumes and over-the-top stage blush, those two opera aficionados might have even given us a standing ovation?
I’d like to think so.
Published in General
Thanks for the Post, Lois I never thought that much of the lady, but if Scalia liked her, that speaks very highly of him. I just started the book, Scalia Speaks, in which she wrote the introduction. It is a fine book, by the way. Very little law in it, so far. Speeches on different topics, by a very fine man.
I would expect the movie to be a hagiography, but that doesn’t mean Ginsburg isn’t deserving of a good deal of credit for her accomplishments. That said, she was undoubtedly in the right place at the right time and had the intellectual wattage to take advantage of it.
As head of the women’s rights project at the ACLU in the early ’70s (I forget it’s exact name), she had the resources of a strong organization that had not yet lost its way in the manner of today. More importantly, the tide against sex discrimination had already begun to turn, although there was a distance to go. “Equal pay for equal work” was actually established by federal law in 1963, a few years after Ginsburg graduated law school. By the 70’s, the worm was well on the way to turning. She undoubtedly was at the forefront of moving things along.
To me, there’s a sense of irony in the reverence with which Ginsburg is held by young liberals today (coffee cups?). This is because she is an “old style” liberal of principles who preferred to “win” through intellect and effort, and not through the tactics of the modern left. In this manner, she is a mirror image of Scalia. She has, in fact, expressed reservations about aspects of Roe v Wade, and I have to wonder how many of those sipping their coffee from a Ginsburg cup know that.
While I’m certainly not a SCOTUS scholar, I think it’s fair to say that, against this backdrop, her career there has been relatively undistinguished. One of her more famous women’s rights opinions–the majority in U.S. v. Virginia opening up VMI to women–was a 7-1 ruling on an issue that was not particularly close legally. She also wrote dissents in Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, and Bush v Gore, among many others. But it’s a bit of her misfortune that the liberal block on the court marches in such lockstep that it seems difficult for her to stand out.
He was a very fine man. Indeed.
I think all that’s true. Her dissent in the voters’ act case under Roberts is what got her the moniker Notorious RBG and a lot of notoriety. But the liberal wing–which I’d prefer to call the progressive wing–does seem to walk in lockstep more than the conservative wing, so you’re absolutely right. What’s sets her apart?
That said, I think that there are degrees. Sonia Sotomayor, for example, seems further left.
Kids with the coffee mugs?
A lot of them couldn’t name how many people sit on the Supreme Court. They certainly couldn’t name all the justices. But some can, and Saturday Night Live gave them an impression of Ruth… an impression that makes her laugh, though she says it has absolutely no traits at all that are even close to representing what she is like in real life.
I wasn’t aware that SNL had “done” her. That explains quite a bit. I’d have to think that some her comments on the election of ’16–highly inappropriate from a Justice IMO–probably helped her notoriety. I can’t imagine Scalia doing that from a different perspective.
To be fair to the documentary, they showed people who took the position that her comments were counter productive in 2016.
Here’s an SNL skit, part of which was shown in RBG.
I think this is all dreadful. Supreme Court justices should not be icons, they should be a little removed from the day to day of our culture. Their job is to interpret the law without regard to what is popular or preferred. Having fans makes it all the more likely to play to those fans.
Not that we ever see that happen, oh no, never.
And as for grand opera, it’s one of those things that you simply get or don’t get. It’s quite possible to learn to like it, a background in symphonic music is very helpful here for familiarity with style.
In law school, I found her writing to be well-written and logical, if wrong. I think that’s why Scalia liked her. I didn’t much like Scalia much of the time, either. He tended to promote government power over just about any cause and didn’t always considered individual freedom.
I think Thomas is the only good justice in my life time. The jury is still out on Gorsuch.
But Ginsberg is much much better than the other two communist women on the court. I don’t like Ginsberg, but she’s infinitely better than they are.
Scalia is no longer able to do good. Ginsburg is still quite capable of doing evil. Let’s not applaud her for it.
Why must the word “evil” be thrown around so promiscuously? This neither contributes to understanding nor elucidates debate. And it certainly does not persuade anyone to think our way, which conservatism used to be about.
How about the word “good”?
Happy (and a wee bit surprised) to see this worthy post make the Main Feed. Merit wins out over political leanings.
Which views would she have to espouse before you wouldn’t admire her?
Not the way you used it.
Government forcing birth control as compensation. Central planning.
I have an idea. Let the business and employees set their own systems of compensation.
The government can give any of this stuff away for “free” at Planned Parenthood.
RBG likes the South African constitution. 100% aspirational communism.
@lois-lane,
I admire your open-mindedness. Eventually, it is very likely I will be seeing this documentary (the Oscar nomination will force my hand). Inevitably, it will be impossible for me to look at this woman with anything but contempt.
Surely, she has great intelligence. Absolutely, she made headway for women. Undeniably, someone would have made similar headway had she not been around. I tend to view shifting culture as natural, with female equality inevitable, especially given the American Ideal taken to its logical end.
Unfortunately, there is simply no way I will ever be able to appreciate her because of my deeply ingrained belief that collectivist thinkers are the most insidious of all. I don’t care how old-style “liberal” (a word that side neither earns nor deserves) she is. Just watch some old F.D.R. footage to see that people like them can’t help but end up with socialism.
I don’t even care if it’s argued there is great difference between socialism and communism or whatever you want to call it. All I see are people with a vision they will stop at nothing to obtain and every door crack lets in their vile ideology further.
She is one of them. I don’t care how smart she is, or well-read/written. She spearheads and exemplifies that calling to destroy what makes this country great. It makes me sick just thinking about people like her.
It’s a good thing people like you exist, to remain open-minded. Because the conversation is never going to end until they win and I just don’t have the tolerance for their nonsense anymore.
Not to be too cynical or anything.
I probably agree with your views, Tom, more than I disagree with them. But your cynicism doesn’t help our cause. And Justice Scalia didn’t agree with you either. To continue to engage with these people is not to convince them. They will never be convinced. But, as long as people like Mrs. Ginsburg are willing to talk, we have the opportunity to convince others that we are right. We can’t to talk to people like ANTIFA. of course not. They are violent thugs. But to refuse to talk to the good-but-misguided ones, we just shooting ourselves in the foot.
The GOP has to get strategic about this, or nothing will get better. The centralization of government, the discretionary central bank policies, and the parasitical Financial system, makes socialism look attractive. It looks like the best option. Then the left always keeps the ground they take.
They don’t lack strategy. They lack ideology. People voting have the ideology. It’s most of the ones in office who don’t, and their ideology consists solely of sharing power with the democrats.
There is an angle on this I am just fascinated by. After World War II, we didn’t wipe out employer-based insurance. This was a huge mistake. Now it’s politically terrifying to tell people it’s a huge mistake. In 2008, John McCain suggests that we need to get rid of employer-based insurance. Of course Obama totally capitalizes on this. Next Obama passes the ACA with a bunch of lies. One of them is the Cadillac tax, which directly but slowly destroys employer-based insurance. The ACA it’s self forces too much socialization in the premiums anyway, which is just another way to make people give up and accept single-payer.
Next, Trump wins. Collins and Murkowski, who have been voting for full repeal, for forever, vote RINO-socialist on the ACA repeal, because their state is full of socialists.
How in the hell do you fix this?
We have some great gun rights people in Minnesota. Yesterday I was watching them go at it with the gun grabbers.
There are so many people in this country that wish for stuff and want stuff via government force and central planning. They are ruthless and idealistic, and they are dangerously stupid. It’s amazing. What do you do?
I’ve tried. I really, really have. I saw an opera in St. Petersburg with music by Rimsky-Korsakov and drank a lot of vodka. Then I thought… well… I must have hated it because it was all in Russian, so I went to another opera in the United States that had the subtitles going above the heads of the actors. I stuck it out to the bitter end by… drinking more vodka. Then I thought maybe I just wasn’t familiar enough with the stories, so I saw a rendition of Porgy and Bess that had been changed into an opera. There wasn’t enough vodka on the planet to make me like that one. I kept thinking about how the music had been destroyed, and what came across as screeches to my ear made my head hurt.
Clearly, I’m in the camp that just doesn’t *get* it.
But that’s okay.
I’m glad other people do.
Thomas is certainly the most conservative, but I believe he deeply admired Scalia.
I applaud her for having the ability to engage with others despite deep disagreements. I think we need more of that on a ground level in the United States. We need less “sorting” into groups that want to do little but lob rockets at each other.
I also applaud some of the work she did in the 1970s for I have directly benefitted from it.
Ahhhhh. Thank you so much, @hoyacon, for saying this is a worthy post. I’m blushing!
I will say I think that some great posts get missed from promotion due more to the volume of work in the member feed than the desire to discriminate against viewpoints.
I love that there really are diverse ideas expressed on this website.
And I admire my dog. I don’t think the dog is better than I am at legal reasoning. Loyalty and friendliness, perhaps.
Well, let’s think about that.
If she was intellectually dishonest and full of evil intent, I wouldn’t admire her at all, but she is consistent with her core values, and her big belief that women and men are of equal worth has some merit, yes?
Anyway, it’s true I think she is horribly wrong about how she interprets the Constitution, but she is hardly outside the mainstream there.
Let’s consider figures from history.
I remember how Patrick Henry thought the Constitution itself was a paving stone in the road to tyranny because of how it centralized power, and in some ways he and the anti-federalists were even right. Does that invalidate James Madison and Alexander Hamilton as great men?
I feel Ginsburg’s views on abortion are the most insidious, but I can understand that she does not believe that life begins at conception, and she sees this as a necessary tool for women.
I can’t say I think the institution of slavery was anything but evil, yet I can understand why Washington, Madison, Monroe, Jefferson, Jackson, et al, felt it was a necessary tool for the South in their lifetimes. Should I not admire Washington, Madison, Monroe, Jefferson, Jackson, et al, though they were deeply mistaken about a legal institution?
Let’s bring it forward to now and flip it around a bit.
I sometimes find President Trump… hard to… admire/take seriously. Yet I admire many of his actions. I can respect his accomplishments despite some of my disdain. And he isn’t even as intellectually consistent as Ruth Bader Ginsburg who shouldn’t have given her opinion on him in 2016.
If going with the Trump construct, it’s admirable to attain certain positions in our country. He’s the President. Whoa. That’s a pretty amazing accomplishment. Ginsburg? She’s on the Supreme Court. That’s… uh… a pretty big feat as well.
Heck. Per that criteria, I even admire Sonia Sotomayor, and I am in serious opposition to her worldview. I’m pretty sure she’s not Che Guevara though.
Unlike Sotomayor, Ginsburg blazed a trail from which I have (gratefully) benefitted.
Her comity in engaging with Donald Trump is legendary.
I was in profound disagreement of Ginsburg’s dissent in that case, and I also thought the movie was dishonest when suggesting that it was all about whether or not an employer should provide employees any birth control within their health insurance plans.
One may certainly answer that businesses should not be compelled to do this at all, but the owners of Hobby Lobby never took that position. They simply did not want to provide abortifacients.
My progressive friend who saw the movie with me did not know the difference.
I thought it was awesome that after the film, I could explain to her what that was and why the case was brought by Hobby Lobby in the first place.
If my friend only listened to other progressives… if she dismissed me as “evil” and simply shut down all conversation… she would still think Hobby Lobby was about something that it wasn’t, and I believe that it’s important that she has a wider view now.
I do not agree with most of RBG’s views.