"Ruth Bader Ginsburg - RIP"

Sydney M. Williams

30 Bokum Road – Apartment 314

Essex, CT 06426

www.swstotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

Ruth Bader Ginsburg – RIP

September 20, 2020

“She was the best of colleagues, as she is the best of friends. I wish her a hundred years.” 

Justice Antonin Scalia On the occasion of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s 10^th Anniversary on the D.C. Court of Appeals 1990

In his novel, The Way we Live Now, Anthony Trollope wrote about his main protagonist, Augustus Melmotte: “But there had grown upon the man during the last few months an arrogance, a self-confidence inspired in him by the worship of other men, which clouded his intellect, and robbed him of much of that power of calculation which undoubtedly he naturally possessed.” Americans, especially those on the far left, have a tendency to elevate heroes to elysian heights, while consigning opponents to eternal damnation. 

 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a brilliant jurist, a pioneer in women’s rights and a person who put politics aside when it came time to choosing friends, as could be seen in her long friendship with Antonin Scalia, opera being a common interest. She fought for equality, fairness and justice. As a lawyer, she argued six cases before the Supreme Court and won five of them, before being appointed to United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by President Carter in April 1980. She was worshipped by fans who called her “notorious” RBG. Two years ago, Betsy West and Julie Cohen produced a documentary on her life, “RBG.” At least six biographies have been written on her life. But we elevate people to iconic status at a risk. She, like all of us, was human.

 

Ms. Ginsburg was political. On July 10, 2016, in an interview with the New York Times, she said, “I can’t imagine what this place would be – I can’t imagine what this country would be – with Donald Trump as our President.” Shortly before she died, she dictated a letter to her granddaughter Clara Spera, in which she said: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

 

There is no question that the Supreme Court does not (and cannot) rise above politics. Judges are nominated by politicians and confirmed by politicians. Nevertheless, lifetime appointments should reduce political interference and angst. In fact, Supreme Court Justices have, at times, turned opposite to what had been expected, two examples being Felix Frankfurter and Earl Warren. Nevertheless, what is important if we want this Republic to persist for another two hundred and thirty-three years is adhering to the basic functions of the three branches of government: A legislature that creates laws; an executive that carries out laws, and a court that ensures laws passed comply with the Constitution. 

 

We will mourn Ruth Bader Ginsburg for a few days, with flags around the country at half-mast. Then politics will reenter the forum, with the President nominating a replacement. Democrats will invoke the memory of Merrick Garland, whose nomination by Barack Obama was blocked in 2016 by a Republican majority-held Senate. Had Democrats controlled the Senate four years ago, Mr. Garland would be Justice Garland today.

 

In this partisan world we inhabit, days of collegiality brought about by mourning for Justice Ginsburg will likely be short-lived. RBG’s death highlights the importance of this election – the difference between those who believe in a “living” Constitution that continuously updates reflecting cultural changes, and those who believe that decisions should be based on the written Constitution and precedent. Questions arise: Should the role of judges be to make or interpret the law? Should legislation be conducted from the bench? Seth Lipsky, in an editorial for the New York Sun, wrote of his admiration for Ms. Ginsburg, but he also recalled an exchange she had in Cairo eight years ago. The interviewer had mentioned that Egypt was writing a new constitution and wanted to know if Egypt should look to other constitutions. She replied: “I would not look at the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in 2012.” She preferred the more detailed bills of rights in the constitutions of Canada, South Africa and Europe. Mr. Lipsky added in his editorial: “Our Constitution rarely grants rights. It establishes negative rights, meaning prohibitions on government interfering with rights granted by God.” The distinction is important, in what it says about the role of government. A quote often mistakenly attributed to Thomas Jefferson has relevance: “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government to take away everything you have.”  

 

I had great respect for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as I do for the opinions of many of my friends on the Left but, just as I disagree with them, I disagreed with her judgments. Nevertheless, she left the world a better place. The real lesson to be learned from RBG is the relationship she had with her fellow Justice Antonin Scalia. They did not let political differences interfere with their personal friendship. Personal relations, even in disagreement, should be civil, collegial and respectful. As for whether President Trump should use this opportunity to nominate a replacement, why shouldn’t he? Surely, Democrats would. As Justice Ginsburg said in that same interview with the New York Times four years ago: “There is nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.” But I pray rhetoric does not become elevated, and that the enduring friendship of two Justices, who represented different views at the Supreme Court, is remembered, as it hovers over a Senate weighing a decision.