There she sat, tiny, even frail
looking, pale, her graying hair pulled back in a tight bun. And wearing lace gloves? (It turns out she wears them often.) I watched her walk in, stooped,
moving slowly. I half expected a small voice to match her stature. But when Ruth Bader Ginsburg
speaks, you know instantly that you are in the presence of a powerful personality and a brilliant mind. And there I was, in the first row behind the reserved seats (thanks
to the gift of retirement: time to wait in the sun to ensure a place near the
front of the line) in a room filled to overflowing.
 |
| The view from the cheap seats |
For those who missed this great
moment … Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court,
was at CU yesterday. She had requested a “fireside
chat” instead of doing a lecture, and her interviewer (the law school dean) was
skilled enough to pretty much stay out of her way. Just being in her presence felt
like touching history. This is a woman to whom we owe uncounted steps in the
movement for equal rights—especially for women, but also for others. The second
woman on the US Supreme Court, and now the grandmamma of a trio of women on the
Court. Asked how many would be “enough,” she smiled, “nine.”
 |
| Ruth Bader Ginsburg ... small only in stature |
There’s so much to say … you’ll have to trust me that this is the edited version, long though it may be.
Listening to Ginsburg was
both educational and inspirational. She told great stories, beginning with
tales of her own career and the place of women in the law. When she first
entered Harvard Law School in the 1950s, her class of 500 included nine women. Of
course they were under great pressure. They all felt as if their performance
reflected not only on their own abilities, but on all women. (Later, in the
1970s when there were more women in law, a faculty friend told her that he had
liked those “good old days” better. If the class dragged, he could always call
on a woman, certain that she would be extremely well prepared … she had to be!
Now, he said, there are so many women, they are as likely to be ill prepared as
the men!) At the time when she graduated, many firms explicitly refused to hire women. Ginsburg
got her first job only because her mentor threatened to never send another
student if the prospective employer failed to give her a chance.
Asked about women on the Supreme
Court, Ginsburg talked about a stunningly short trajectory. Sandra Day O’Conner
was appointed in 1982 as the first woman on the Court (over 200 years after the
nation’s founding). She was the lone woman for over a decade until Ginsburg joined
her in 1993. Knowing that folks would be confused because the Court had only
ever had one woman, friends gave them
both t-shirts. Ginsburg’s said “I'm Ruth, not Sandra” and O’Conner’s said, “I'm Sandra, not Ruth.” Ginsburg was still being addressed by some attorneys as “Justice O’Conner”
many years later.
When O’Conner retired,
Ginsburg was the sole woman. Asked how this felt, she said “lonely.” But more
important, she said, was that it gave the wrong message: one small woman and
eight large men. It made her seem out of place, like she didn’t belong. That
has improved greatly with the recent addition of two more women. Because of
her seniority, Ginsburg sits near the center of the bench, and the two junior women
sit at either end. Now, she said, it looks like women belong there. Now the
message says, of course the Court includes
both women and men.
The dean’s questions
elicited some great personal stories, too. (I confess to loving these stories …
but I also found myself wondering whether he would ask a male Supreme Court
justice about his wife and kids.) Ginsburg talked about her very supportive
husband, Marty, who did all the cooking because, she said, she’s a terrible
cook. “And owing to a lack of interest,” Marty is reported to have commented, “she
is unlikely to improve.” So he became a stellar chef—in fact, the Court’s
bookstore carries a volume of his recipes. And then there was the time when she
insisted that her son’s school alternate which parent they called when her “lively”
child acted up. As instructed, they called Marty one day, and he dutifully reported
to the principal’s office. When he asked what the boy had done, they told him, “He
stole the elevator.” “Well,” replied Marty, “how far could he take it?”
Disarmed by his sense of humor (or perhaps hesitant to risk another visit by
dad), they never called again.
Talking law (this was, after
all, a law school event), she recounted a litany of cases in great detail, rattling
off names of parties and precedents as if any normal human could follow her
(probably some folks could; personally, I just sat in awe). She especially
focused on cases related to women’s rights and gender parity, a specialty of
hers. (BTW, she began to use the word “gender” instead of “sex” some time ago, when
a secretary pointed out that “sex” seemed to jump off the page when it came up
so often. “Gender,” this secretary suggested, would be less likely to get folks
all riled up.)
As she talked about the evolution
of civil rights law, Ginsburg mentioned a striking fact that I don’t believe I ever
knew: Nowhere in the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights—i.e., the “founding
documents”—is the word “equal” ever mentioned. “Why?” Ginsburg asked
rhetorically. “Because of the odious practice of slavery.” Only after the Civil
War ended was it possible to amend the constitution to guarantee equal
protection under the law for all people (Amendment 14). And thus began the long
struggle for equality, to which Ginsburg has made enormous contributions. During
discussion of this topic, a high school student asked about the future of LGBT
rights. Smiling, she said she couldn’t answer because the challenge to the federal
Defense of Marriage Act is likely to come before the Court this coming session.
Her casual announcement that the court is likely to hear this case this year was newsworthy
to many folks—enough so that it was reported by Slate (who got it from AP).
Ginsburg’s reputation on the
Court is well known: she is the most predictable member of the “liberal” segment
of the Court—not surprising, given her long association with the ACLU and with
human rights causes. But she resists that sort of easy classification. The US Supreme
Court, she asserts, is the most remarkable institution on earth. For it to
work, it is absolutely essential that its members be thoughtful in their deliberations,
respectful of one another, and always collegial, despite their differences in
opinion and judgment. Otherwise, this incredible institution would crumble.
As evidence of her
allegiance to this position, she sprinkles her comments with casual references
to other members of the court, folks you’d think she’s keep at a distance. Word
is that she regularly plays cards with Justice Scalia, who is to the “conservative”
side of the court what Ginsburg is to the “liberal” side. And she is quick to
point out that despite appearances to the contrary, the justices actually
agree on most cases. We, the everyday public, only see the
high-profile cases, she says, those that are politically loaded. But behind all those cases are
many, many more where the Court is called upon to issue opinions in less
contentious domains. On these, they are often in agreement. Ginsburg’s
illustration: The two people which whom she
most often disagrees are Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas (no surprise there!).
In the session that ended this past spring, she agreed with each of them more than
60% of the time.
Probably my favorite comments
came toward the end (I know what you’re thinking: you mean there’s more?), as Ginsburg shared some thoughts
about truly weighty matters. A question from the audience invited her to
comment on what she sees as the most important legal challenge facing the nation
in the near future. Her answer was quick and began with a simple statement, which I’ll
paraphrase: Balancing personal freedom with the need for security. She paused
(her manner of speaking includes a lot of pauses, typically followed by pithy
elaboration on whatever she just said). Of course, she said, security is very important
in a world now threatened by terrorism. But we must be careful, because personal
freedoms can easily be sacrificed in the search for safety. Here, she cited a
narrow miss in the contest between security and rights: the Court’s unanimous
ruling that the laws of the US do apply
in Guantanamo Bay. But, she reminded the assembled (and hopefully attentive)
masses, other rights and liberties remain at risk. This is the greatest legal challenge in the near future of the nation!
The final question was
predictable, coming as it did from the dean of the law school: What is the most
important thing that the law school should be teaching its students today? I
loved Ginsburg's answer: It’s not all about making a buck. When you become an
attorney, you have a license and you have valuable skills. But you also have an
obligation to use those to serve others. If your goal in practicing law is
simply to make money, then you are not behaving in a professional manner.
ACLU, civil rights, women’s
rights, human rights advocate to the core: The
most important thing for attorneys to know is that they are obligated to use
their skills to serve others.
I love it.
No comments:
Post a Comment