Do you even know who the Notorious B.I.G. is?

September 29, 2014 6:56 AM

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on her career, her fame, and the law.
posted by roomthreeseventeen (44 comments total)

Oh god I thought this was an obit post and I may have had a mild aneurism.
posted by poffin boffin at 7:30 AM on September 29, 2014 [11 favorites]

"Now, however, liberals have a new fear: that Ginsburg has stuck around too long,"

I will have words with these people. Fightin' words.
posted by Strass at 7:31 AM on September 29, 2014 [8 favorites]

"Now, however, liberals have a new fear: that Ginsburg has stuck around too long,"

I will have words with these people. Fightin' words.

Oh come on. She's 81 years old. Breyer is 76. There's no guarantee the next President with be a Democrat.

In a world with Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, when Obamacare survives by one lucky vote, you really want to play those odds?
posted by leotrotsky at 7:44 AM on September 29, 2014 [6 favorites]

And there's no guarantee that the next Justice will be as good as Ginsberg.

I'll take an average jurist who'll be on the court for 15-20 years over Solomon himself.
posted by leotrotsky at 7:50 AM on September 29, 2014 [4 favorites]

She's one of my heroes. I absolutely love her.
posted by sarcasticah at 7:54 AM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]

I think this is an important point:

I don’t think I changed. Perhaps I am a little less tentative than I was when I was a new justice. But what really changed was the composition of the Court.

And I love the part about the Canadian Air Force exercises. She's like a judicial, octogenarian Doc Savage.
posted by audi alteram partem at 7:59 AM on September 29, 2014 [3 favorites]

I'll take an average jurist who'll be on the court for 15-20 years over Solomon himself.

Given the situation in both the House and the Senate, the belief that Obama could nominate anyone, no matter how centrist, and get them through, is startling in its optimism. No one that Obama wants on the bench will be approved. Full stop.

Not unless the Senate changes the filibuster rules to apply to Supreme Court nominations as well, which I find highly unlikely.
posted by suelac at 8:11 AM on September 29, 2014 [2 favorites]

Not unless the Senate changes the filibuster rules to apply to Supreme Court nominations as well, which I find highly unlikely.

You don't think Harry Reid would have gone full nuclear with a Supreme Court seat at stake? Really?
posted by leotrotsky at 8:17 AM on September 29, 2014 [6 favorites]

I asked some people, particularly the academics who said I should have stepped down last year: “Who do you think the president could nominate and get through the current Senate that you would rather see on the Court than me?” No one has given me an answer to that question.

Sure, because that's the wrong question. The question is, who would I rather see on the court for the next 25 years, and sadly Justice Ginsberg is not an option.

suelac: Given the situation in both the House and the Senate, the belief that Obama could nominate anyone, no matter how centrist, and get them through, is startling in its optimism. No one that Obama wants on the bench will be approved. Full stop.

Not unless the Senate changes the filibuster rules to apply to Supreme Court nominations as well, which I find highly unlikely

A Supreme Court nominee has never been filibustered, and while it's a possiblity, it's unlikely. This is different that, say, the debt limit, because while some percentage of Republicans really do want that blocked, consequences be damned, no Repbublicans want their own nominees fillibustered.

Obama will get his nominee, it just won't be someone terribly impressive on resume alone. Many of our liberal justices were nominated by Republicans, of course, so resume alone doesn't tell the whole story.
posted by spaltavian at 8:20 AM on September 29, 2014 [3 favorites]

leotrotsky: You don't think Harry Reid would have gone full nuclear with a Supreme Court seat at stake? Really?

Reid needs 49 colleagues to join him, and there are a whole lot of Democrats who value their own individual power more than they care about the outcomes. I'd like to think that the ones who've voiced opposition to eliminating the filibuster entirely (IIRC Schumer, Leahy, Boxer, Feinstein were among them) would change their tune if, e.g. Roe were hanging in the balance, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:23 AM on September 29, 2014

Supreme Court is different; he'd get his 49 votes.
posted by spaltavian at 8:24 AM on September 29, 2014 [2 favorites]

spaltavian: A Supreme Court nominee has never been filibustered, and while it's a possiblity, it's unlikely.

The full faith and credit of the United States in fulfilling its debt obligations was never threatened, until it was.

Filibusters were never invoked on routine, uncontroversial pieces of legislation, until they were.

Presidential nominees, even uncontroversial ones, weren't routinely blocked, until they were.

The GOP has not worried about precedent when obstructing Obama -- why would they start worrying about it now?
posted by tonycpsu at 8:26 AM on September 29, 2014 [10 favorites]

I specifically addressed the debt limit.
posted by spaltavian at 8:30 AM on September 29, 2014

In any case, if you believe they are going to filibuster now, they'd filibuster later. So now, when you at least have a majority to go nuclear, is better than later, when you may not even have that. You can't bank on ever having 60 votes.
posted by spaltavian at 8:35 AM on September 29, 2014

I'm going to have to make an effort to see Scalia/Ginsburg.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:36 AM on September 29, 2014 [2 favorites]

spaltavian: Are you seriously going pretend I didn't specifically address the debt limit?

Why are you being so confrontational here? (spaltavian edited their comment while I was writing this, so nevermind) Just because you addressed it doesn't mean I'm required to accept your argument that it's different somehow. I'm not "pretending" anything -- I am simply not persuaded by your argument that it's somehow different in kind.

The items I mentioned are all part of a pattern of maximalism in which the GOP simply doesn't give a fuck about the consequences. If you're willing to threaten the country's economy, why wouldn't you filibuster a SCOTUS nominee? They're still angry about Bork some 30 years later -- why wouldn't they escalate when they've escalated via every other mechanism they have? You've established no limiting force other than "tradition", which as I've pointed out, they break constantly.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:37 AM on September 29, 2014 [3 favorites]

tonycpsu: I'm won't speak for spaltavian, but I assume the GOP would filibuster. They'd call the candidate "extreme," "activist", etc.

Then Reid would go nuclear, and he'd get his votes.

But since we're likely to lose the Senate this cycle, that will likely no longer be an option.

That's on Ginsberg for putting her own interests above those of the people she's ostensibly defending.

So we better hope Hillary wins in 2014.
posted by leotrotsky at 8:45 AM on September 29, 2014

leotrotsky: That's on Ginsberg for putting her own interests above those of the people she's ostensibly defending.

Yeah, no. It's not Justice Ginsburg's job to worry about the composition of the Court. Her job is to interpret the law, and she's doing a much better job of that than anyone who could survive a GOP nomination fight. Every year she stays on is another year of her writing excellent opinions, mentoring the other justices on the Court, and simply being awesome. If a Republican wins in 2016, we're fucked six ways to Sunday anyway, so I'll take guaranteed awesomeness now instead of provisional competence later.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:49 AM on September 29, 2014 [13 favorites]

I am simply not persuaded by your argument that it's somehow different in kind.

Okay, but you didn't say that, you asked a question that I already answered:

The GOP has not worried about precedent when obstructing Obama -- why would they start worrying about it now?

Answer: This is different that, say, the debt limit, because while some percentage of Republicans really do want that blocked, consequences be damned, no Repbublicans want their own nominees fillibustered.

The Republicans can't count on ever getting 60 votes, either. If they lose a perferred nominee, it's just a loss. The Debt Limit is a heads I win, tails you lose situation.

And again, this isn't an arugment for waiting to retire. If they're willing to filibuster now, they are willing to filibuster later.
posted by spaltavian at 8:51 AM on September 29, 2014

That's on Ginsberg for putting her own interests above those of the people she's ostensibly defending.

I think that's a particularly uncharitable view. Based on her own statements, Ginsburg sees no long-term benefit for the nation in retiring now, and a lot of good she could do before she's no longer able to work. Your phrasing seems to indicate she's in it for the money.

And no, I don't believe Harry Reid could get his 60 votes, not in this political climate, especially not if the proposed justice has anything in her resume indicating a preference for reproductive freedom or civil rights.
posted by suelac at 8:51 AM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]

I assume the GOP would fillibuster.

Considering their record, the folks at FiveThirtyEight give some cause for optimism. But nothing's a sure bet.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 8:55 AM on September 29, 2014

It's not Justice Ginsburg's job to worry about the composition of the Court.

It's her seat, and it's her right to stay as long as she wants, but this is a level of naivete that I'm confident Justice Ginsburg does not share.

If a Republican wins in 2016, we're fucked six ways to Sunday anyway,

If a Republican wins in 2016 and gets to replace Justice Ginsburg, it will be seven ways to Sunday, and that seventh way will last a lot longer than 4 or 8 years.

And no, I don't believe Harry Reid could get his 60 votes

Fifty, he only needs fifty to go nuclear and he has it. They already did it once. This really isn't a question.
posted by spaltavian at 8:55 AM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]

nspaltavian: Answer: This is different that, say, the debt limit, because while some percentage of Republicans really do want that blocked, consequences be damned, no Repbublicans want their own nominees fillibustered.

Yes, and my point is you're assuming a level of forward thinking on their part that is not in evidence. If they were willing to blow up the global economy, there's no coherent view of the world that would lead them to think about two, four, of six years from now when they are in the minority. They've shown no signs of caring about the future before, why would they start?
posted by tonycpsu at 8:57 AM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]

If they were willing to blow up the global economy

Many of them really don't think it will, and many of them think it's for the greater good.

They've shown no signs of caring about the future before, why would they start?

They don't need to care about the future, they just need to care about controlling the bench. They might be dumb, but they can still count to 60. I'm not saying it will never happen, I'm saying it's unlikely and the debt limit fight really doesn't inform us in this sort of situation.
posted by spaltavian at 9:00 AM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]

spaltavian: It's her seat, and it's her right to stay as long as she wants, but this is a level of naivete that I'm confident Justice Ginsburg does not share.

If she was worried about the composition of the Court, she'd be resigning. Knowing how protracted a nomination fight would be, she'd have to do it soon to avoid it being a 2016 election issue in which Hillary would be pressured to nominate a moderate. Sure looks to me like she's more concerned with doing a good job and not about political matters she has very little control over.

If a Republican wins in 2016 and gets to replace Justice Ginsburg, it will be seven ways to Sunday, and that seventh way will last a lot longer than 4 or 8 years.

Yes, but you're ignoring the opportunity cost of losing her guaranteed progressivism versus whatever milquetoast candidate could get confirmed in this climate. Two more years of RBG is valuable. If it were guaranteed that someone as good or better could survive a nomination fight, I'd take it, but there is no such guarantee.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:01 AM on September 29, 2014

leotrotsky: That's on Ginsberg for putting her own interests above those of the people she's ostensibly defending.

suelac: Your phrasing seems to indicate she's in it for the money.

And, suelac, you are making an uncharitable assumption about leotrotsky's meaning. All he seemed to indicate is that she is in it for self-interest (which could be money, or legacy, or pride, etc.)

I personally think she has the best interests of the nation at heart, but she is wrong in her decision. No assumption of character failure is necessary at all.
posted by IAmBroom at 9:03 AM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]

Yes, but you're ignoring the opportunity cost of losing her guaranteed progressivism versus whatever milquetoast candidate could get confirmed in this climate

We'll get the same vote either way, we may or may not lose the elegant and powerful voice. We are sadly going face that proposition either way, though. The vote is still the more important of the two.
posted by spaltavian at 9:05 AM on September 29, 2014 [2 favorites]

I'll take an average jurist who'll be on the court for 15-20 years over Solomon himself.

FACT: Solomon once attempted to cut a baby in half and was only stopped by the child's distraught mother

FACT: Solomon is not, and has never been an American citizen, nor has he set foot in the United States of America

FACT: Solomon was personally involved in the construction of a site where ritual animal sacrifices were routinely performed.

Solomon: The Wrong Song for SCOTUS
posted by Copronymus at 9:06 AM on September 29, 2014 [27 favorites]

That's on Ginsberg for putting her own interests above those of the people she's ostensibly defending.

I think that's a particularly uncharitable view. Based on her own statements, Ginsburg sees no long-term benefit for the nation in retiring now, and a lot of good she could do before she's no longer able to work. Your phrasing seems to indicate she's in it for the money.

Of course not. I just think that a seat on the Supreme Court is a tough thing to give up, and folks tend to hold onto it a little too long, even when they probably shouldn't. That's how you get drug addicted justices (Rehnquist) and senile justices (Thurgood Marshall, William O. Douglas, potentially Scalia).
posted by leotrotsky at 9:08 AM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]

Many of them really don't think it will, and many of them think it's for the greater good.

I'm sorry, but no. In no universe is the Senate blocking debt to finance programs the same Senate already approved good for Congress, the USA, or the world. It's pure brinksmanship. There is no principle behind it, it is absolutely the GOP trying to wreck shop and they are certainly unscrupulous enough to do the same with SCOTUS nominees that they've done with every other kind of nominee, including ones they didn't actually object to.
posted by 1adam12 at 9:11 AM on September 29, 2014 [2 favorites]

I've mentioned this on metafilter before, but among my favorite things about RBG is this quotation from her husband's obit in the Washington post:

Mr. Ginsburg said he was proud of his wife's accomplishments and had no regrets about the compromises they made for each other.
"I have been supportive of my wife since the beginning of time, and she has been supportive of me," Mr. Ginsburg told the Times in 1993. "It's not sacrifice; it's family."
posted by atomicstone at 9:11 AM on September 29, 2014 [2 favorites]

What isn't so well known is that it was Rosen himself who played a big role in bringing Ginsburg to the Clinton administration's attention -- he wrote a long and persuasive article early on arguing the case for Ginsburg.

Wikipedia says that Toobin wrote in his SCOTUS book that it was Janet Reno who recommended Ginsburg to Clinton, but I have a very strong memory of reading Rosen's piece at the time, being convinced from it that Ginsburg was the best choice, and then reading that Rosen's piece played a big role in raising her visibility within the administration while they deliberated all this. I was really excited when she moved to the top of the list and then was Clinton's choice.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:12 AM on September 29, 2014

spaltavian: We'll get the same vote either way, we may or may not lose the elegant and powerful voice. We are sadly going face that proposition either way, though. The vote is still the more important of the two.

Maybe on Roe we'd get the same vote, but assuming that we could get another Justice that is as reliable as Ginsburg is on other issues is folly. Look at how Souter ended up for the Republicans -- there were no signs that he'd be as much of a wild card (dare I say occasional liberal?) as he ended up being. Ginsburg is a stone cold lock for progressive priorities, and was confirmed before the Court (and the Congress) had swung so far to the right. You're simply wrong in assuming we could get another equivalent or even similar candidate through.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:15 AM on September 29, 2014

no Repbublicans want their own nominees fillibustered.

This assumes that the Republicans will not simply eliminate the filibuster as soon as they have control of the senate.
posted by tyllwin at 9:32 AM on September 29, 2014 [4 favorites]

Be that as it may, politically, I think there are solid arguments for Supreme Court reform. Turley. Moyers. Sure, I feel I can trust Ginsburg when she says she's ready to keep working for years to come, but I also want a system that doesn't stick me with a cranky, senile, and borderline racist Scalia, for example, for as long as he can hang on. I feel the current politicized system encourages the nomination of a certain kind of jurist, especially noteworthy on the Republican side, and that's not good for the country -- nor is the competition to find someone who is simultaneously accomplished by uncontroversial and necessarily youthful enough to hold a seat for many years to come. At one time this system may have worked well, but I don't think it's ideal anymore, and a more routine tempo of nominations, using staggered terms, will be fairer to both sides.
posted by dhartung at 9:42 AM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]

On her exercise routine:

I do a variety of weight-lifting, elliptical glider, stretching exercises, push-ups. And I do the Canadian Air Force exercises almost every day.

This information just made me squeal in glee. She lifts weights! I am so charmed.
posted by likeatoaster at 9:45 AM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]

Ikeatoaster, I would totally work out with RBG. I was charmed by the interview in general, but particularly that fact and the fact that she can intelligently discuss Jazzercise.
posted by blnkfrnk at 10:24 AM on September 29, 2014

Did RBG Disqualify Herself From Texas Abortion Case?
posted by jpe at 10:26 AM on September 29, 2014

I am still trying to match her in number of consecutive push-ups.
posted by benito.strauss at 10:50 AM on September 29, 2014

A lovely, matter-of-fact interview. My mother, who lives in DC, sees her all the time at the Washington Opera and the Met Opera HD broadcasts, and remarks on how delightful it is to see her, though no one seems to recognize her. Those who do are gracious and leave her alone at such times (perhaps deterred by the presence of her nearby security detail, who may or may not like opera, according my mother). But re: the article, it good to know there is such a strong show of public admiration of Justice Ginsburg via popular culture. I hope she stays for as long as she feels she can, because like her, I am not sure an equivalent jurist could survive the confirmation process just now.
posted by buffalo at 11:02 AM on September 29, 2014

Did RBG Disqualify Herself From Texas Abortion Case?

By those standards, Scalia never gets to vote on anything ever again.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:26 AM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]

"There’s another scene where Nino [Justice Scalia] is locked up in a dark room for excessive dissenting. I come to rescue him, entering through a glass ceiling and singing a “Queen of the Night”–type aria."

. . . words fail.
posted by ostro at 12:01 PM on September 29, 2014

I loved this interview and have tremendous respect and admiration for Justice Ginsburg. In a perfect world she would stay right where she is for the next 25 years.

Here's an interesting little bit of trivia, however: had Thurgood Marshall stayed on the court for just 18 months longer, and not been forced by his failing health to retire during the Bush I administration, his successor would have been named by Bill Clinton. (And, sadly, Marshall desperately wanted to retire under a Democratic administration).

In the alternative historical scenario in which Marshall had been able to hang on just a little longer, Citizens United would most likely have been decided differently. As would have Hobby Lobby. Oh, also Bush v. Gore...

I'm sorry that we live in a world in which Justice Ginsburg probably won't be with us for another 25 years. I'm sorry that the Supreme Court has become so blatantly politicized. But it is what it is. In light of that, I think for the good of the country, the world, and the preservation of the tremendous amount of good that she's done in her time, she should step down while Obama is still President. (Ideally with a democrat-controlled senate as well, but that ship has probably sailed, unfortunately).
posted by seymourScagnetti at 11:57 PM on September 29, 2014 [1 favorite]

So. This just happened. It disenfranchises voters in democratic districts, typically minorities. Signed sealed and delivered along party lines - they don't want anyone who isn't a Republican voting, and this is at the top level of jurisprudence.

Everything Ginsburg worked for is in jeopardy because she clung to office too long - after this round of mid-terms, a right-leaning moderate will be the only possible replacement, and if she hangs on another two years, could very well see a Republican president appoint another Roberts or Scalia.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:48 AM on September 30, 2014 [2 favorites]