During an exclusive interview with MSNBC’s Irin
Carmon, aired on The Rachel Maddow Show, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
discussed Roe v. Wade and why she believes it will be upheld and the
state of race relations. Such interviews offer a rare insight into the
innerworkings of a Supreme Court Justice’s mind and the Court itself.
Perhaps the highlight of the interview came when Justice Ginsberg
explained by she believes the Court will probably uphold Roe v. Wade.
From the interview, one can see that Justice
Ginsburg remains a sharp legal mind, aware of the issues and who is
affected by them.
. She continues to understand the political
landscape in Congress but also within the Supreme Court. You see a woman
who rose to every challenge she ever got, well except cooking. You
also see a person with compassion, humor, a sense of purpose.
On women’s rights, Justice Ginsburg describes the
1970’s as a period of ending the close door area. Today’s challenge, of
“unconscious bias” she says is more difficult. She tells the story of a
symphony orchestra to illustrate the point.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: When I
was growing up, one never saw a woman in the symphony orchestra, except
perhaps playing the harp. People who should have known better like The New York Times critic,
Howard Tau– Taubman said, “You could put a blindfold on him and he
could tell you whether it’s a woman playing the piano or a man.”
Someone had the simple idea, “Let’s drop a curtain.
Let’s drop a curtain between the people who are auditioning and the
people who are judging.” And almost overnight, there was a sea change.
Once the curtain was dropped, the testers couldn’t tell whether it was a
man– or a woman. And they made their judgments based on the quality of
the performance.
When the discussion turned to reproductive rights,
Justice Ginsburg pointed to the fact that the repugican cabal’s “pro
life” agenda, in reality, only makes reproductive choice inaccessible to
poor women.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: –Who
does that hurt? It hurts women who lack the means to go someplace
else. It’s almost like– remember the– oh, you wouldn’t remember,
because you’re too young. But when most states allowed divorce on one
grounds, adultery, nothing else. But there were people who went off to
Nevada and stayed there for six weeks. And they got a divorce. That
was available to people who had the means, first to get themselves to
Nevada, second to stay there for some weeks.
The highlight of the interview occurred when Justice
Ginsburg outlined the 3 factors that that she believes make it unlikely wingnuts will overturn Roe v. Wade. First, Ginsburg says this
court places a very high value on precedent. Second, when giving a
chance at an earlier time, the court upheld the ruling and actually
strengthened it. Finally, a woman’s right to make her own choices has
become part of the culture. She drives the point home by recalling what
former Chief Justice William Rehnquist did when the opportunity arose to
overturn a ruling he was critical of – the Miranda ruling.
IRIN CARMON: You mentioned if Roe v. Wade is overturned, how close are we to that?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: This court is highly precedent
bound. And could happen, but I think it’s not– not a likely sc–
scenario. The court had– had an opportunity to do that some years ago.
And they said in– in an opinion known as C– Casey that they would not
depart from the precedent they had set. They did more than that. They
gave a reason, a rationale that was absent in Roe v. Wade itself. Roe
v. Wade was as much about a doctor’s right to practice his profession as
he sees fit. And the image was the doctor and a little woman standing
together. We never saw the woman alone. The Casey decision recognized
that this is not as much about a doctor’s right to practice his
profession, but about a woman’s right to control her life destiny.
Think of– a famous decision. It’s known by the name
of Miranda. It tells the police, “Before you question a suspect, you
have to tell that suspect of his or her right to remain silent and to
have a lawyer. And if the suspect can’t afford a lawyer, to have one
provided by the state.
That’s routine now. The– that– that– that the– the
police will– will give to people who are arrested. My former chief,
Chief Justice Rehnquist, was highly critical of the Miranda decision.
But when the question came up, “Would it be overruled?” he said, “No, it
has become part of the culture.”
While discussing her health, Justice Ginsberg shares
a story about her self-described stubbornness when she had stint
surgery to repair a blocked coronary artery.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: The
most recent episode– occurred when I was with my personal trainer. And
suddenly, my chest felt so constricted. And I broke out in a sweat. I
was overwhelmingly (UNINTEL). So I said, “Well, I stayed up all night
last night writing an opinion. So I’m just exhausted. I’ll rest for
awhile.” I was very stubborn.
My trainer called my secretary– my wonderful
secretary, who had already gone home to Annapolis. She came back. And
in her gently persuasive way, she said, “We’re putting you in an
ambulance and taking you to the hospital. You really must go.” And– of
course, I got there. And they gave me an E.K.G. And it showed–
whatever it showed, they whisked me up to the catheter place.
And it was a blocked right coronary artery. As soon
as they put this stint in, I was awake and in the procedure, groggy,
but still awake. And I could see them doing another (UNINTEL). As soon
as the stint was in place, I was fine. No more constriction in my
chest. I wanted to go home. (LAUGH) And they said, “No, we’re not
gonna let you go home. You– you have to stay here for two nights to be
sure.” I did that.
At one point, Irin Carmon asked Justice Ginsburg if
she changed her mind about anything. That was when the Justice shared
advise she got while serving on the DC circuit and continues to live by.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: I got
very good advice when I became a judge of the D.C. circuit. Judge Ed
(UNINTEL), who is very much my senior colleague, said, “Ruth, I’m gonna
tell you something about the business of judging. You work very hard on
each case. But when it’s over, don’t look back. Don’t worry about
things that are over and done. It’s not productive to do that.
Instead, go onto the next case and give it your all.” So nothing leaps
immediately to my mind that I would have done differently. But I don’t
dwell on that kind of question. I really concentrate on what’s on my
plate at the moment and do the very best I can.
When the discussion turned to the topic of tattoos,
it was clear that Justice Ginsburg has very strong views on the topic of
tattoos. She expressed distress over the fact that they are permanent
but she also had an appreciation for one that is a picture of her with
the words “Respect the bench”
JUSTICE GINSBURG: I saw
that. And I thought it was– I thought it was a joke. I thought it was
something you pasted onto your arm. But I– I’m a little distressed
that people are really doing that.
IRIN CARMON: Distressed why?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Because why would you make something that can’t be removed on yourself?
However, there was one tattoo that she liked.
IRIN CARMON: Well, I
think it’s because they admire you, that’s why. This is the second
tattoo I’m aware of. The other one has a picture of you. And it says,
“Respect the bench.”
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Well, that’s a nice sentiment. (LAUGH)
Then Irin Carmon asked “What do you want young women who admire you to take away from your work?”
JUSTICE GINSBURG: I
would like them to have the enthusiasm that we had in the ’70s–
determining that the law should catch up to the changes that have
occurred in society, changes in the way people whatever, the realization
that no one should be held back, boy or girl– because of gender,
artificial gender barriers.
During one part of the interview, Justice Ginsberg was asked to describe things and people in one word.
She described President Obama with “sympathie” which
means “who cares about other people. She described Chief Justice
Roberst as “Most able to.”
When asked about Citizens United and Hobby Lobby rulings she had the same word many of us think of — Wrong.
Justice Ginsburg declined to discuss gay rights
generally and she certainly didn’t want to speculate on how the court
will decide the upcoming case on marriage equality.
While critical of rules to restrict abortion access,
Justice Ginsburg sees some positive developments in rulings pertaining
to women’s rights. She points to one example of her influence over the
more conservative justices in a case involving Savana Redding, a girl
who was strip searched.
IRIN CARMON: But you’ve been dismayed by the courts rulings on women’s rights?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Not all (UNINTEL). Think of the case of the girl who was strip searched. She was in the eighth grade.
IRIN CARMON: Savana Redding.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: And if you saw the difference
between the oral argument and what some of my colleagues thought, “Oh,
the boys in the gym, they– they undress and nobody thinks anything of
it.”
IRIN CARMON: That was a case in which you changed their minds.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes.
When the interview turned to race relations, Justice
Ginsburg dropped a truth bomb on the wingnut shrieking points about
racism being a thing of the past.
JUSTICE GINSBURG:
People who think you could wave a magic wand and the legacy of the past
will be over are blind. Think of neighborhood living patterns. We
still have many neighborhoods that are racially– identified. We still
have many schools that– ev– even though the days of state enforced
segregation are gone, segregation because of geographical boundaries
remains.
While recognizing that we “have come a long way”,
Justice Ginsburg describes the discrimination (based on race and gender)
people continue to experience buy cars and homes as prevalent.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: That
same pattern. So again, we’ve come a long way from the days where there
was state enforced segregation. But we still have a way to go.
Then the discussion took the next logical step to
Justice Ginsburg’s views on the Court’s rollback of civil rights.
However, she sharply rebuked the disfunction and shenanigans of the teabagger dominated repugicans in Congress when compared with the
bipartisanship of passed Congresses.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: The–
the Congress in 1991 took a look at some of this court’s restrictive
interpretations of Title 7. And they passed a bill that changed–
changed all of those. At the moment– our Congress is not functioning
very well. (LAUGH) I mean, for example, the Voting Rights Act was
renewed by overwhelming majorities on both sides of the aisle. But the
current Congress is– not equipped really to do anything.
When it came time to discuss her marriage to Martin
Ginsburg, Justice Ginsburg identified the characteristics her late
husband had, that she felt were exceptional in her experience. She
talked about the fact that theirs was a marriage based on mutual support
as they built their respective careers but it was also reflected in the
way they cooked their meals.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Marty
was an extraordinary person. Of all the boys I had dated, he was the
only one who really cared that I had a brain. And he was always– well,
making me feel that I was better than I thought I was. So we went to
law school. And he told everybody, all of his friends, and he– he was
one year ahead of me. His wife was gonna be on the Law Review.
And people looked at me and said, “She doesn’t look like the type that’s gonna be on the Law Review,”
whatever that type was. And– but in the– in the course of a marriage,
one accommodates the other. So, for example, when Marty was intent on
becoming a partner in– in a New York law firm in five years, during that
time, I was the major caretaker of– of our home and– and– and then–
child. But when I was– when I– started up the ACLU Women’s Rights
Project, Marty realized how important that work was.
Well, I was the everyday cook. And Marty was the
company and weekend cook. And my daughter, who was a fine cook– when
she was in high school, maybe about 15-16, she noticed the enormous
difference between Daddy’s cooking and Mommy’s cooking. And decided
that– Mommy should be phased out of the kitchen altogether. She
shouldn’t be cooking every day.
Justice Ginsburg went on to confess that she hasn’t cooked a single meal since 1980.
Later, Carmon asked Justice Ginsburg if she still
experiences sexism. The answer is yes, though less than she once did.
When asked how she reacts to it, Justice Ginsberg said she does it
through her opinions and speeches. She tells the message that it is
“wrong to judge people on the basis of what they look like, color of
their skin, whether they’re men or women.”
When the question of retirement came up, told us how she would know when it is time.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: once I
sense that I am slipping, I will step down. Because this is a very
intense job. It is by far the best and the hardest job I’ve ever had.
And it takes a lot of energy and staying power to do it right. So that
is– is when I will– I will step down when I feel I can no longer do the
job full steam.
On how she hopes to be remembered.
JUSTICE GINSBURG:
Someone who used whatever talent she had to do her work to the very best
of her ability. And to help repair tears in her society, to make
things a little better through the use of whatever ability she has. To
do something, as my colleague David Souter would say, outside myself.
‘Cause I’ve gotten much more satisfaction for the things that I’ve done
for which I was not paid.
Ginsburg also provided more detail and context to why she fell asleep during President Obama’s SOTU Address.
IRIN CARMON: I’ve gotta
ask you, by the way, everybody’s talking about the State of the Union.
They’re saying you said yesterday that you were not 100% sober.
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Oh– (LAUGH) what I meant was that
I head a glass of wine with dinner. And that on top of having stayed
up all night. I was writing something.
Overall, the interview tells us Ruth Bader Ginsburg
sees America as it really is and how it could be. We see a justice who
recognizes a period of struggle, in which there are shades of gray, but
also shades of light that give us hope. Justice Ginsberg is someone who
combines the reality of the way things are with an idealism of how
things could be and as importantly, a pragmatic way to make those ideals
possible. Throughout it all, Justice Ginsburg shattered repugican shrieking points with facts, legal history and the insights of a great
Supreme Court Justice.
