The Supreme Court Justice Will Take Your Questions Now

Emily Bazelon has an interview with Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the upcoming NYT magazine.

Matthew Cooper in the Atlantic:

Most of it centers on the role of women on the court, all of which is interesting. The full-throated endorsement of Sonia Sotomayor is itself interesting, the gentle ribbing of Breyer and Scalia as aggressive questioners on the Court and her deep affection for the late Chief Justice WIlliam Rehnquist and her thoughts on his growing sensitivity to feminist causes all make for good reading on the Sotomayor hearings. It’s hard to believe that the interview wasn’t timed to help Sotomayor not that she needs much help.

Ed Whelan at The Corner:

Interviewer Emily Bazelon states that Ginsburg “was forceful about why she thinks Sotomayor should be confirmed.” Just the topic, of course, that any Supreme Court justice should see fit to opine on the day before a confirmation hearing starts.

Ginsburg offers this feeble defense of Sotomayor’s “wise Latina woman” comment: “Think of how many times you’ve said something that you didn’t get out quite right, and you would edit your statement if you could.” Ginsburg is evidently unaware that Sotomayor’s comment was part of a text that Sotomayor herself prepared and later published as a law-review article (and that she repeated on several occasions).

Isaac Chotiner at TNR:

This seemed worthy of more comment:

Q: What about the case this term involving the strip search, in school, of 13-year-old Savana Redding? Justice Souter’s majority opinion, finding that the strip search was unconstitutional, is very different from what I expected after oral argument, when some of the men on the court didn’t seem to see the seriousness here. Is that an example of a case when having a woman as part of the conversation was important?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: I think it makes people stop and think, Maybe a 13-year-old girl is different from a 13-year-old boy in terms of how humiliating it is to be seen undressed. I think many of [the male justices] first thought of their own reaction. It came out in various questions. You change your clothes in the gym, what’s the big deal?Ginsburg has made this point before, and maybe it was her reaction to jokes at the oral argument which assured the Court’s eventual 8-1 decision. But the whole phrasing of Bazelon’s question seems off. Bazelon is implying–as did many others at the time–that joking about something means you do not take it seriously. This is a very limited way of looking at how human beings behave. There are plenty of reasons to abstain from making a joke–it is not funny, it is hurtful, etc.–but the seriousness of the subject is not automatically one of them. In other words, just because Justice Breyer makes light of his experiences in gym class, it does not follow that he has little sympathy for Savana Redding. The Court’s admirable ruling proves this clearly.

John Hinderaker at Powerline:

Without looking ahead to the end, guess who said this, in an interview that will be published on Sunday:

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. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.That was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in an interview to be published Sunday in the New York Times Magazine. Of course, the interviewer didn’t ask what “populations” those might be. For a moment, at least, we catch of glimpse of what some liberals really think about abortion.

Ed Morrissey:

Bear in mind, too, that this explanation strongly implies that she held that view not just until she could get clarification by reading the decision or talking with the justices.  Don’t forget that at the time Ginsburg had already made herself prominent in feminist circles, establishing in 1970 the first law journal exclusively devoted to feminist issues and holding a tenured position at Columbia from 1972-80.  In fact, she argued cases before the Supreme Court during that period.  And it wasn’t until 1980, which is when the Supreme Court decided McRae, that Ginsburg realized it didn’t have anything to do with allowing the government a mechanism to practice eugenics.

In that seven-year period, did Ginsburg use her considerable clout to argue against Roe, if that’s what she believed, or for that matter, against government funding of abortions?  If not, shouldn’t we surmise from that silence that either (a) Ginsburg had few problems with government pushing a eugenics program, or (b) that she was willing to shrug off the eugenics in order to support Roe for the access to abortion?

Ria Misra in Politics Daily on Ginsburg and affirmative action:

Says Ginsburg:
“So am I. I was the first tenured woman at Columbia. That was 1972. Every law school was looking for its woman. Why? Because Stan Pottinger, who was then head of the office for civil rights of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, was enforcing the Nixon government contract program.”

And, later:
“I never would have gotten that invitation from Columbia without the push from the Nixon administration. I understand that there is a thought that people will point to the affirmative action baby and say she couldn’t have made it if she were judged solely on the merits. But when I got to Columbia I was well regarded by my colleagues.”

The best possible argument for affirmative action seems to be that incredibly successful and unquestionably qualified people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg point to it as a means of getting a foot in the door. It was her record as a scholar, her penchant for research, and a brilliant understanding of the law that ultimately built Ginsburg’s reputation and propelled her forward in her career. Still, getting noticed and being put on the list of potentials in the first place was important to her path to the Supreme Court.

Jezebel

UPDATE: Ted R. Bromund in Commentary

UPDATE #2: Jonah Goldberg in LA Times

And on Goldberg’s column, Isaac Chotiner in TNR

Kevin Drum