1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[Mother Jones] What the Cult of Ruth Bader Ginsburg Got Wrong

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Os Trigonum, Nov 27, 2018.

  1. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    82,241
    Likes Received:
    122,631
    Critics such Linda Hirshman have accused the Notorious RBG of selfishness for not retiring under the Obama administration while she had a chance. "Now it may be too late."



    https://www.motherjones.com/politic...uth-bader-ginsburg-rbg-got-wrong-obama-trump/


    What the Cult of Ruth Bader Ginsburg Got Wrong
    Fans defended her choice not to retire under President Obama. Now it may be too late.
    STEPHANIE MENCIMER NOVEMBER 24, 2018 6:00 AM

    On the Basis of Sex, a feature film on the pioneering legal work of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is due to roll out in theaters nationwide on Christmas Day. With Felicity Jones’ portrayal of Ginsburg as a hot, young ACLU lawyer, the canonization of “Notorious RGB” will be officially complete. The 85-year-old justice’s celebrity status as a badass feminist has never been higher. CNN, which earlier this year produced a Ginsburg documentary titled RBG, has declared her the “face of the resistance” against President Donald Trump’s agenda, and a new Ginsburg biography was published in October to coincide with the 25th anniversary of her confirmation. A retail store opened recently in Washington, DC, stocked almost exclusively with RBG merch: yoga mats, water bottles, T-shirts, action figures, magnets, and pins designed to look like Ginsburg’s lace “dissent collar.” The store is called The Outrage.

    But no amount of swag or hagiography can obscure the fact that, while Ginsburg is responsible for a great number of landmark legal decisions, her legacy may be sorely tarnished by one truly terrible one: refusing to retire when President Barack Obama could have named her replacement. That decision came into stark relief this month when Ginsburg fell and broke three ribs—and half of the nation took a collective gasp. Women took to Twitter to offer the justice a rib.

    Irin Carmon, a co-author of Ginsburg fan-book The Notorious RBG who is as responsible as anyone else for the contemporary Cult of Ginsburg, encouraged devotees not to freak out. Their hero is resilient, indestructible even, Carmon insisted. Ginsburg has survived cancer—twice!—and still has never missed a day on the bench. “I am not RBG’s doctor, but I am one of her biographers, here to testify to her resilience,” Carmon wrote inThe Cut. To reinforce her point, Carmon interviewed Bryant Johnson, Ginsburg’s longtime personal trainer, who said, “To all the stressed-out people in America, remember that the justice is TAN. Now, I always use that acronym: TAN. She’s tough as nails. You think three ribs are going to stop Justice?”

    But Carmon and others who’ve helped turn Ginsburg into a pop-culture icon are deluding themselves. Ginsburg is a mere mortal. Falling down is the leading cause of accidental death in people over age 85. The actuarial table is not in her favor. There’s a real possibility Ginsburg will not outlast the Trump administration or live long enough for a Democrat to replace her. The situation today is one many liberal lawyers feared years ago and worked hard to avert. But the feisty justice rebuffed them all, a decision that makes all the hero worship hard for some of us to stomach.

    The calls for Ginsburg to step down began in 2011 when Randall Kennedy, a Harvard law professor and former clerk to the late Thurgood Marshall, wrote a piece in The New Republic gently urging Ginsburg, then 78, to retire while Obama was in office. (He had suggested the same of Justice Stephen Breyer, now 80.) Kennedy was publicly airing private concerns among Democrats that it could be Ginsburg’s last chance to be replaced by a Democrat. “Justices Ginsburg and Breyer have enriched the nation with long, productive, admirable careers,” he wrote. “Those, like me, who admire their service might find it hard to hope that they will soon leave the Court—but service comes in many forms, including making way for others.”

    Kennedy held up his old boss as a cautionary tale. Marshall’s health problems forced him to retire during the administration of George H.W. Bush, who replaced the legendary civil rights lawyer with Clarence Thomas, a conservative ideologue who has spent his 27 years on the bench working to unravel virtually everything Marshall fought for. “f Justice Ginsburg departs the Supreme Court with a Republican in the White House,” Kennedy wrote, “it is probable that the female Thurgood Marshall will be replaced by a female Clarence Thomas.”

    Ginsburg declined the advice and might well have used the line deployed by Felicity Jones in a scene from On the Basis of Sex, wherein the young Ginsburg tells the ACLU’s legal director: “You don’t get to tell me when to quit.”

    After Obama’s 2012 reelection, the Ginsburg retirement calls came with a new urgency. In December 2013, the National Journal ran a piece titled, Justice Ginsburg: Resign Already!, in which writer James Oliphant observed that the passage of Obamacare would likely hand Senate control to the Republicans in 2014, thus preventing Obama from naming a Ginsburg successor. His concerns were echoed by prominent liberal legal scholars, notably Erwin Chemerinsky, now dean of the University of California-Berkeley law school, who wrote in early 2014 in the Los Angeles Times, “I do not minimize how hard it will be for Justice Ginsburg to step down from a job that she loves and has done so well since 1993. But the best way for her to advance all the things she has spent her life working for is to ensure that a Democratic president picks her successor.”

    In response to the retirement calls (mostly from men), Ginsburg gave an interview to the New York Times’ Adam Liptak laying out the reasons she planned to ignore them. “There will be a president after this one and I’m hopeful that that president will be a fine president,” she said. Ginsburg added that she planned to keep working “as long as I can do the job full steam.” The only evidence she could see that she’d slowed down by her age, she said, was that she’d given up water-skiing and horseback riding.

    In retrospect, it doesn’t seem like a coincidence that the making of Notorious RBG happened at a time when many liberals were begging her to step down. The canonization began in 2013, after Ginsburg issued a furious dissent in Shelby County v. Holder, a case that gutted a big chunk of the Voting Rights Act. Inspired, New York University law student Shana Knizhnik launched a “Notorious R.B.G” Tumblr. The meme took off and ultimately led to a 2015 book, Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which Knizhnik co-authored with fellow fangirl Carmon, then an MSNBC reporter.

    Ginsburg has since been tattooed on women’s arms, immortalized in song and a children’s book, and featured on SNL. She’s had her face plastered on everything from tote bags to water bottles. This merchandising could not have happened without the justice’s blessing; the law gives her a fair amount of control over the use of her image, as she well knows. Rather than start copyright battles, Ginsburg has encouraged her cult following. She assisted Carmon and Knizhnik with their book, appeared in the CNN documentary and makes a cameo in On the Basis of Sex, carries an RBG tote bag in public, distributes RBG T-shirts to friends and admirers, and generally has reveled in her celebrity.

    Perhaps the savviest element of Ginsburg’s pushback against calls for her retirement is the promotion of her workout regime. Details of it appear in Notorious RBG, and Ginsburg allowed the RBG documentary makers to film her doing pushups and tossing a medicine ball—proof, the film implies, that she is nowhere near death’s door.

    more at the link
     
    jcf likes this.
  2. Brando2101

    Brando2101 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Messages:
    6,428
    Likes Received:
    945
    What makes you think Mitch wouldn’t have railroaded her replacement like he did Garland?
     
    Rocket River likes this.
  3. Rashmon

    Rashmon Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2000
    Messages:
    21,436
    Likes Received:
    18,499
    Exactly. We need to put RGB and Breyer in bubble wrap and have them sleep in cryogenic chambers for the next two years.
     
    Rocket River likes this.
  4. Bobbythegreat

    Bobbythegreat Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    69,179
    Likes Received:
    32,931
    After they lost the Senate, it would have been difficult for them to get another far left justice on the bench, it would have probably required a bit of compromise and I'm not sure anyone was interested in that. That said, they'd have managed a much better outcome having her step down then than if she dies in the next 2 years....or 6 years if they screw up and get Trump re-elected. The false allegations and nonsense during the last SCOTUS process was enough of a circus, I cannot even imagine how ugly things will get if RBG dies with Trump as president and a Republican dominated Senate.
     
    cml750 likes this.
  5. Nook

    Nook Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    60,565
    Likes Received:
    135,688
    She is a Supreme Court Justice, she isn't a Senator.

    They are ideally insulated from the overly political realm.

    The Justice's should retire when they are no longer effective or when they want, not when a political party wants them to.

    Also the only real issues I have with Ginsburg is that she is guilty of over politicizing the job. She isn't the only one, but she was partially responsible for it.
     
    RayRay10 and cml750 like this.
  6. Nook

    Nook Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    60,565
    Likes Received:
    135,688
    Why only 2 years? Even if the Democrats win the White House, it is unlikely that they will win the Senate.
     
  7. Bobbythegreat

    Bobbythegreat Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    69,179
    Likes Received:
    32,931
    This is true, but if you have a Democrat in the White House you won't get a far right replacement. Eventually the Senate would have to accept someone, they couldn't run the clock out for 4 years. However Democrats would not be satisfied with anything less than a far left replacement for RBG, and a Republican Senate would never allow that to happen, they'd probably compromise on some kind of moderate. Then again, we'd just be assuming that the Democrats don't cause Trump to win re-election and I don't think that's a given anymore.
     
  8. Nook

    Nook Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    60,565
    Likes Received:
    135,688
    Yeah I agree with you.

    We saw something similar during Reagan and Bush Sr. where they had to nominate someone that tended to be more neutral or not get approval. Examples being Kennedy, Souter and O'Conner.
     
  9. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    35,127
    Likes Received:
    15,385
    My thinking. Supposedly, the supreme court isn't partisan. They aren't elected and, once confirmed, answer to nobody short of an impeachment. They owe the political parties nothing and it is awfully presumptuous to assume a justice should retire to maximize one party's benefit.

    That said, this lifetime appointment stuff was effin' stupid. Great job, Founding Fathers, another mistake we can't erase. They should have a single, long term and then they're out. It'd limit this nonsense of nominating 40-somethings to the bench and then dying before you can see what a mistake that was. It should also mitigate the voter strategy of picking presidents based on a gamble on the lifespan of justices. And, we can stop playing USSC Russian Roulette.
     
    Rocket River, RayRay10 and CometsWin like this.
  10. Rashmon

    Rashmon Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2000
    Messages:
    21,436
    Likes Received:
    18,499
    Do you want the dotard to fill two more seats? I fully expect the dotard to be a one term historical mistake.
     
  11. JayGoogle

    JayGoogle Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2007
    Messages:
    52,324
    Likes Received:
    45,193
    I think this is the issue with the SCOTUS in the first place. the idea that RBG should have retired to help out Democrats is part of the problem. They aren't supposed to be partisan and it feels like both sides just see the Supreme Court as something to control.
     
    arkoe likes this.
  12. Nook

    Nook Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    60,565
    Likes Received:
    135,688
    No I don't especially want Trump to fill two more seats.

    However the reality is that Trump has a decent chance to be re-elected and even if Trump loses, it is unlikely that the Democrats will take back the Senate.

    If the Democrats do take back the Senate and win the White House, prepare for them to nominate and likely confirm some 40 year old extremely liberal person.
     
  13. Rashmon

    Rashmon Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2000
    Messages:
    21,436
    Likes Received:
    18,499
    I'd be quite satisfied with your second scenario.
     
    Deckard likes this.
  14. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,206
    Likes Received:
    20,353
    Mother Jones is about as valid as most of the right wing drivel posted by Os
     
  15. jcf

    jcf Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,190
    Likes Received:
    2,272
    You are right, but if you strongly believe in certain positions, I would think you would want to ensure that those positions lived on beyond you. For example, if you believe that a RBG type would better protect certain rights more than a conservative appointee would, and more importantly if RBG believed it, maybe she should have put those beliefs ahead of her own desire to continue serving as a Supreme Court Justice.

    Not really a party thing as much as how strongly one cherishes certain ideals.

    That being said, I think it would be extremely difficult to give up such a position particularly if you still had your health and faculties and were essentially a living legend. It is also possible that she didn't think a replacement would be as effective for a number of reasons including the relationships she has forged with the other justices.
     
  16. jcf

    jcf Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2,190
    Likes Received:
    2,272
    My 2 cents (fwiw): We need some balance on the Court, and at the moment it seems way out of balance. Some times people change while serving and end up differently than predicted so time will tell. But, I expect you are 100% correct on what will happen if both the White House and Senate go blue, and it will help reestablish some balance.
     
    Deckard likes this.
  17. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    35,127
    Likes Received:
    15,385
    I suppose I have an ideal that people should be free to govern themselves and not be stuck because of some decision their fathers or great great grandfathers made. We decided over 200 years ago on the rules of the game and wisely built in a process for changing the rules. Unfortunately, the process is so difficult as to make change almost impossible, so we can't govern our rules. And then the inability to govern ourselves is perpetuated in other things, including the decision to invest enormous power for life in a small committee, and our repeated choices to appoint individuals to this committee to serve for 40 years, and the choices of other justices (like Kennedy) to retire 'strategically'. As for RBG, if she thought Obama would appoint someone who could carry on her legacy and that was something she wanted, I suppose she would have done it (probably she bet on Hillary prevailing, and lost). Though I don't want Trump picking her replacement, I am kind of glad she refrained from imposing her will on the future of the Supreme Court in that way.
     
  18. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    82,241
    Likes Received:
    122,631
    some would argue "Fortunately"
     
    jcf and JuanValdez like this.
  19. Bobbythegreat

    Bobbythegreat Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    69,179
    Likes Received:
    32,931
    I would argue that one of the wisest things that was done over 200 years ago was to prevent short sighted mob rule by creating a framework that is incredibly difficult to change while allowing for other rules to be changed more freely so long as they do not violate the basic framework. That feature is what has prevented a lot of instability that would have arisen from mob rule being allowed to completely change everything on a whim. That framework can be annoying when you are trying to do certain things, but IMO it's very much worth it.
     
    cml750 and jcf like this.
  20. Fantasma Negro

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2011
    Messages:
    13,531
    Likes Received:
    12,346

Share This Page