I was an adult before I realized that Supreme Court members had personalities. Upon learning the Supreme Court voted along party lines to put W. in office, I can remember having the distinct thought, “Party lines? WHAT THE HELL? The Supreme Court doesn’t have parties, does it? Justice doesn’t have a party affiliation.” To this day, that may well be the stupidest thought I’ve ever had.
The Supreme Court has now been conservative for 47 years. [Let me put that another way — if you were born after 1970, you have never known a blue-dominated American government. Never. But it’s fun to pretend that liberals are the cause of all your problems, so by all means keep blaming them. MAGA!] The conservative Supreme Court run should have ended when Antonin Scalia died, but loath to concede any little part of power, tortoise lord Mitch McConnell was douchebag-on-the-spot to cheat the system of fairness. Ruth Bader Ginsburg (“RBG”) is currently 84-years-old and if she goes during a red presidency, I don’t expect I will ever see a blue Supreme Court again.
You can argue constitutional bullshit until Trump tells the truth, but that’s just wrong. And deep down, every American who cares knows it. The court needs to reflect the people, not those who best game the system. So in the mean time, we have no choice but to celebrate the pillar of Supreme Court decency and consistent spokesperson for underprivileged Americans, RBG.
Another thing that should strike every American is how the court’s conservative shift has pushed Ruth Bader Ginsburg further and further to the liberal end of the scale. Have her rulings actually changed in 25 years? I don’t think so. We’ve changed. Have we changed for the better? Look at the White House and you tell me. RBG has always been an advocate of women’s rights; we’ve just come to an agonizing time when the majority in power think plutocracy is a really good idea and equality … less. Have we come full circle to separate-but-equal? Not quite, but it’s important to remember social progress never travels a straight line.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been a Supreme Court justice since 1993. During that time, she’s beaten both colon and pancreatic cancer; she also attended many operas with personal friend Antonin Scalia – I’m not sure which of those things I’d rather do; in my book, it’s a tough call. Then again, I’m not made of half the stuff RBG is.
RBG the biography is something of a love letter. It runs through the remarkable history of Ruth Bader from Cornell to Harvard to Columbia to kids and grandkids and arguments before the Supreme Court on women’s rights before joining the court itself. For a person who is both diminutive and reserved, her stature couldn’t stand taller. In between various historical photographs, the documentary lets her words fill the screen – that makes sense. This is the gift of Notorious RBG. As tireless champion of the underrepresented, she has shown strong for dissent after dissent in opposition to the conservative majority. Her words have shaped subsequent laws even when they don’t shape judgment.
It’s hard not to overlook the puff elements of this documentary; it was obviously made by fans of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But when you look at RBG‘s career, can you understate the big picture? In the 1950s, Ruth Bader Ginsburg went to law school with a toddler in the house. Later on, her husband took ill … with cancer. Ruth took care of child, husband, house, and still made law review. I went to law school once. I was exhausted from law school. Just law school. No spouse, house, children, or cancer to reckon with. And I was about as close to law review as humans are to a Pluto colony. You cannot understate that. RBG is a superhero in my book. In addition, the film did point out the huge RBG flub of dissing Donald Trump pre-election. Yes, that was a very bad move. There’s also a slight sadness to the horror of RBG constantly writing dissents in some of the major court mistakes of this century: Bush v. Gore, Citizens United v. FEC, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, etc. We triumph in the dissent full-well knowing Ginsburg should have written the majority opinion.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg represents both how far we’ve come and how far we still need to go in our social evolution. How far we’ve come is best stated by Ruth herself, climbing from blackballed job seeker –hindered only by her sex—in the 1950s to the most respected Supreme Court justice alive in the present day. How far do we need to go? Look no further than the
2016 Presidential election. So many Americans held an equal distaste for both candidates and, thus, prided themselves for their stance on equality. That isn’t how equality works. I hate eggplant and wasps equally, but that doesn’t make these things equal, now, does it? And if we had a job which required a flying animal and the choices came down to an eggplant and a wasp and I said, “Well I hate them both, so I don’t care,” I would look stupid. That is exactly how Trump voters look right now.
The last Presidential election was not between eggplant and wasp, but more like a lunch choice between peanut butter and dogshit. Sure, if you hold your nose and squint and fail to filter any misleading information, they both look exactly the same, don’t they? Many of you hate peanut butter and decided, selfishly, the choice didn’t matter because you were avoiding lunch. Some of you are allergic to peanuts, thus the choice of peanut butter makes no personal sense … that still doesn’t justify a vote for dogshit, but it’s more understandable. Ever since the day when dogshit lied about inaugural crowd size, we have all gone hungry for lunch. And yet, a full third or more of the country insist that dogshit was not only the right choice, but he’s doing a great job. Boy, would I love to bring my report card of straight Fs home to you. There are two takeaways from this revelation: 1) Millions of people live in hate bubbles. 2) We still have a very long way to go. I hope RBG lives and opines forever.
♪You went to school of law, girl
It was never, ever done before
You already got your “wife” degree
Now why do you need some more?
Then then then came law review
Review, review
Ceiling above, yeah!
Ceiling above
Break through that glass, take a seat
Up on the bench with judges elite
RBG
Stalwart as
DDE
Another loss
Six-to-three
RBG
JFC
More dissent
For our country♫
Rated PG, 97 Minutes
Director: Julie Cohen, Betsy West
Writer: Dunno, but you better believe it was a dissenting opinion
Genre: The power of dissent
Type of being most likely to enjoy this film: Hillary voters
Type of being least likely to enjoy this film: Clarence Thomas
♪ Parody Inspired by “ABC”
