The controversial appointment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States this October disillusioned many Supreme Court news-watchers. However, I believe that veteran Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg represents a glimmer of hope for leftists who follow U.S. law and politics.
The 85-year-old judge, nicknamed Notorious RBG, is one of two female U.S. Supreme Court Justices and is generally regarded as the most progressive justice currently on the bench.
This raises two questions: Who is Ginsburg and what makes her so notorious? To answer this question, it is important to first understand what the Supreme Court of the U.S. is, and get to know some important judges.
The Court may act as the judiciary of final appeal regarding cases of federal law. It is one of the most powerful institutions in U.S. law and politics.
The U.S. constitution dictates that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . Judges of the Supreme Court.”
With the hyper-partisanship that exists in the United States, judges tend to mirror the ideology of the party that nominated them. Judges nominated by Democrats tend to be liberal, while Republican-nominated judges are usually conservative. It is worth noting that there is nevertheless an ideological spectrum among judges. Currently, four judges were nominated by Democrats and five by Republicans.
For many, Kavanaugh’s swearing-in represented a major hit to progressivism. He replaced swing-voter Justice Anthony Kennedy. Not to mention the fact that he was accused of sexually assaulting Christine Blasey Ford and, as a circuit judge, had a far-right record on issues such as abortion.
As long as Ginsburg is on the bench, hope still exists for those who oppose Kavanaugh and his ideology. In a sense, Ginsburg may act as a foil to Kavanaugh. While the latter is conservative and new to the court, the former is an experienced feminist icon in the field of law.
Case in point: Ginsburg authored the Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services. The issue was whether Friends of the Earth had standing to sue the defendant after they dumped mercury into the North Tyger River, South Carolina, and in doing so violating its permit. Ginsburg sided with the plaintiff, holding that it had standing to sue because of the damage done to the recreational and aesthetic value of a residential area. This is the case despite the lack of physical harm to the North Tyger residents.
Unfortunately, now that Trump has appointed two traditional conservatives—the aforementioned Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch—it will be harder for Ginsburg to form a majority. However, even if she cannot do so, her dissenting opinion will serve as an example for progressives inside and outside of the judicial system.
This is not unprecedented. A famous example is her dissent in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. In this case, Goodyear, a tire company, gave Ledbetter lower pay and raises relative to other employees. Ledbetter alleged that this was due to sexism. Her paycheques reflected a growing gap compared to those of her male co-workers.
Unfortunately, the 5-4 majority sided with Goodyear, holding that the defendant could not be deemed discriminatory thanks to a technicality. In contrast, Ginsburg’s minority opinion stated that Goodyear’s actions were discriminatory and that the majority “overlooks common characteristics of pay discrimination.”
Although Ginsburg could not form a majority in that case, her dissenting opinion has been cited numerous times within and outside the legal field.
Ginsburg is a judge whose work should help leftists interpret the law and legal system, especially in today’s era of Kavanaugh and conservatism. She is notorious because of the impact she made—and continues to make―in the world of law.
Laidward and Goodyear are just two examples of cases where Ginsburg’s progressive outlook on the law made an impact. I am looking forward to many more in the remaining years of her tenure.
