The NY Times Magazine has a fantastic interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, available online here . The interview is conducted by Emily Bazelon, a graduate and member of the faculty of Senior Research Scholar in Law and Truman Capote Fellow for Creative Writing and Law at Yale Law School and the senior editor of Slate.
It's a fantastic (but long) interview which touches upon the role of women on the Court, Judge Sotomayor's hearing, and some recent gender civil rights cases.
Some interesting highlights:
In response to Sotomayor's wise Latina comment: "Yes, women bring a different life experience to the table. All of our differences make the conference better. That I’m a woman, that’s part of it, that I’m Jewish, that’s part of it, that I grew up in Brooklyn, N.Y., and I went to summer camp in the Adirondacks, all these things are part of me." (Emphasis mine.)
About Sotomayor's purported fieriness: "Yes, the notion that Sonia is an aggressive questioner — what else is new? Has anybody watched Scalia or Breyer up on the bench?"
About women's roles on the court in gender discrimination cases: "I think the presence of women on the bench made it possible for the courts to appreciate earlier than they might otherwise that sexual harassment belongs under Title VII."
On what she would want to fix as a lawyer: "Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. [...] So we have a policy that affects only poor women."
General comment on changes in abortion policies: "So I think the side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they’re fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change. " (Emphasis mine.)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Interview with Justice Ginsburg.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14862
It's interesting she mentions being Jewish as 'part of it.' I won't hold my breath, but it would be rather nice for an agnostic or atheist to be on the court some day.
Well, keep in mind that for many of us Jews, being Jewish isn't just a religious identity, it's cultural, too. For some Jews, it's not a religious identity at all! Given the context of the question she was asked, Ginsberg seems to be bringing up her Jewishness in parallel to Sotomayor being Latina, with it being a non-white heritage/ethnicity that colors her experience, completely aside from the whole God thing.
I was going to say the same thing alixana said. I'm Jewish and agnostic. My Judaism isn't a religion for me, it's my ethnicity and culture. I'm not saying it's the same for Justice Ginsburg, but I just wanted to point out that out.
And also I love Justice Ginsburg!!! That's more of just a general comment :)
Ugh, that was supposed to be a reply to Lance, whoops!
she is amazing. i am always so happy when there are articles here about her, thanks for linking this!
It truly is fantastic. The questions are great, too, and I truly respect Justice Ginsburg. I hope she stays on the Court as long as possible.
I certainly would have liked to see her called out for this bit:
"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."
I would be interested to know exactly what "undesirable" populations Ginsburg had in mind.
Maybe I am the type who will positively interpret anything Justice Ginsburg says, but I get the impression that she isn't personally saying there are undesirable parts of the population, but that the prevailing ideology at the time was that abortions would control populations deemed by the general public––and more specifically by the while male-dominated government––to be less desirable.
My impression is that she isn't including herself in that "we," but rather using "we" to mean the legal community or, more specifically, the all-male Burger Court.
Also, don't mean to be overly critical, but I don't really understand why in my original post the phrase "member of the faculty of" was changed. According to Yale, though she is indeed Senior Research Scholar in Law and Truman Capote Fellow for Creative Writing and Law, she is still part of the faculty. The URL and the page title ("Yale Law School | Faculty | Emily Bazelon") on the linked site surely corroborates this.
Weird pseudo-censorship. Were the editors just trying to be more specific? Because lack of specificity surely isn't wrong...
"General comment on changes in abortion policies: "So I think the side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they’re fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change. " (Emphasis mine.)"
This reminds me of how some conservatives claim they'll win out over progressives in the long run because they have more children than progressives. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/youth%20vote shows it's not so simple...
RBG is such a badass, i enjoyed this interview so much. i read the new york times (online) in my jammies while i eat my morning toast and i take it for what it is and never expect too much on the whole not-being-sexist-twats front (after all, they gave ross douchehat a column), but it's particularly nice to wake up and see a piece like this prominently featured.
Okay. I like Ruth, but is this really appropriate? This is quite startling to see her to come out on the record and influence the nomination proceedings like this, and perhaps attempt to influence the outcome? Is this her place? It certainly doesn't seem wise.
I can't recall any time in the modern era a Supreme Court Justice has done something like this. I personally have few qualms with what she has to say, but I *do* have serious reservations about her public discussion of her opinions on the Sotomayor nomination proceedings before they have come to their eventual conclusion.
And can someone please tell me what the heck this means?
"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."
In that context, she's clearly talking about poor people, but is this really the way she meant to say it? If it is, then I have all sorts of issues with it.
I mean, she sounds like some crazy, wealthy, racist aunt. Does she not?
Jake N. covered it well up above. I think she was just expressing her surprise over how Roe turned out given what the concerns of her colleagues were, not what her concerns were. She shows too much awareness in the rest of the interview (and in her opinions) for me to believe she wants to control the population growth of poor people.
I agree. I totally agree. But they way it sounds?!?! It sounds ummm... bad.
The way I interpreted it: Ginsburg observed that at the time Roe v. Wade was decided other people may have supported the legalization of abortion for reasons she did not agree with (ie. the control of undesirable popualtions). The "we" should not be read as inclusive of Justice Ginsburg. Nevertheless, this quote will probably be used out of context by political opportunists. It is my hope, however, that no one here really thinks Justice Ginsburg is, or ever was, pro-eugenics.
Unfortunately
its being spun that way now
by right wing pundits.