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
The thing is this: progressives say the exact same thing about people who don’t see the world as they do. This is why a woman in the documentary is amazed that Ginsburg could be friends with a “nut job” like Scalia. I would take RBG over that witch any day of the week.
Has she ever explained that video to anyone? It’s just laughable that she would think all of the parts of that thing could possibly work.
Also, that place really is turning into a communist hellhole as we speak. It’s bad.
I think that’s a very optimistic view, @skyler. Some voters have a firm ideology, but government is also a reflection of their desires. There is a reason that Eisenhower said way back in the 1950s that any Republican who tried to get rid of social security–the most centralizing, budget draining, dependence making behemoth ever–would be relegated to oblivion. Even Democrats are only reflections of their constituencies. Go to a San Francisco cocktail party, and you will feel very alone. People are often getting what they want when they vote, even if you and I don’t.
Right. Which is why we have the government we have. This isn’t about “the swamp.” It’s a bit about the people. Which is fine, I guess. As I tell my students, we either believe in our form of democracy or… we don’t. ;)
One time I made the mistake of saying that the Plan B pill wasn’t an abortifacient on a catholic thread, here. Never again. lol
In the interest of saving The Republic, tell your students to read this and watch this.
Mises.org is the only hope for humanity. lol
George Townsend “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.”
What do you call someone who lived through the twentieth century and still admires fascist and communist policies? Crazy? Stupid? She’s obviously brilliant and was in a position to watch it all unfold. She chose not to learn from the evil we all witnessed. Do you believe shaving the truth from words will win over people? While I don’t know her, didn’t see the documentary, haven’t studied her opinions and save the term for the truly evil people I’ve seen up close, or that we’ve all seen from a distance through a clear lens, we must remind ourselves evil doesn’t come dressed up like Bela Lugosi. It can be charming and personally engaging but uses it’s power to pursue evil policies.
Look. I love Thomas. Right down to his habit of parking his RV in Walmart parking lots. He’s the least elitist of the bunch, and that tickles me pink. He is definitely the most consistent with his views. But Thomas is a party of one. That does nothing in the Supreme Court without allies. Scalia was a pretty good ally.
If they were still around espousing slavery, I’d hope your respect for them would be somewhat reduced. RBG is still around and her work on the Court remains largely pernicious.
Yes. She should be called out on how she has talked about the president, and she was in the very documentary that was made to highlight the good things about her career.
IF I was living during the 1790s–if I had even thrown my weight behind manumissions and believed in abolition like, say, Alexander Hamilton–I doubt very much that I would not still admire George Washington. I might engage him in continual debate like the Marquis Lafayette, in fact, did in a long correspondence over this point of grave contention. I might join a demonstration against slavery to show him that there was dissatisfaction with his position.
But I would be lying to you if I said I would respect our first president less because it took him until the end of his life to free those human beings in his direct control from bondage.
I would certainly not join with the little progressives now who forget every other contribution of those men because they are hyper focused on this one thing.
I am consistent about how I judge people, whether I agree with them or not.
I think Mrs. Washington freed her salves after his death because she thought they would poison her.
That may be all wrong.
Hmmm… Washington freed his slaves in his will, though he did not have power over all of Martha’s. I don’t know what happened with the entire estate. If someone else knows, they could tell us!!!
You shouldn’t based on my opinion. But it was so nice to get away from Trump (mostly) thanks to your efforts and into an area that’s of particular interest (to me).
You are completely missing my point, Walton. Even you are correct about these people, calling them names is not contributing anything. It just alienates people. This feeling that you and others who think this way have is not helping the cause that we care about. It may be satisfactory to you to continue to do this. I assure you that you are not winning converts. If the people who think in this juvenile fashion continue in this manner, it is they who will pave the way for a way of life they claim to detest.
What you mean “we,” white man?
I don’t think I’m missing or even necessarily disputing your point. I’m questioning it.
I stand by what I wrote. The reason I wrote that you were missing my point is because I was saying that calling names is silly. Even if these people are as bad as you say they are, writing what you think about people is off-putting. You are just satisfying your need to tell everyone that you think this person is stupid. Why is it so hard to point out the reason you think they are wrong? This is what persuasion is all about. And my point was that you, and the person who originally made the evil comment, are not helping to advance the message.
This is an exchange I had on Twitter this morning. Mark Penn, who is a Democrat has written some brutal stuff about the Trump investigation. Smart guy but he’s too idealistic.
Government is how we steal from each other. You have to seize the government and take stuff from people. It’s just like caveman days.
The left doesn’t care about policy, it’s all about electioneering so they can win elections so they can steal. The Republicans aren’t much better.
Also Keynesianism has made us all stupid about economics. It embeds all of the graft and rent seeking.
Also don’t search out my Twitter feed. I’m even weirder over there. lol
It isn’t.
If the lady has not yet ovulated, the sudden progestin dose shuts down LH and prevents ovulation.
if she has, the sudden progestin dose hyper-decidualizes the endometrium and prevents implantation. Until implantation there is no pregnancy.
Thus plan b is not an abortifacient. I, who do no abortions, will gladly prescribe plan b, as I did to one lady on Monday.
It is if you believe life begins at conception.
The GOP legal threats on abortion drive up Planned Parenthood’s overhead and K Street bills. They literally have abortion quotas to cover their overhead. It makes women vote Democrat. Make the moral case instead.
Central planning compensation is idiotic.
Mises.org is right about everything.