With Roe v. Wade in Doubt, Some Liberals Fault Ruth Bader Ginsburg for Not Retiring Early
Some fans are now souring on her legacy.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was 87 years old when she died in 2020. Had she retired from her position as a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court several years earlier, when Barack Obama was president and the Democratic Party still controlled the U.S. Senate, she would have guaranteed that a Democratic appointee took her place. Instead, Ginsburg's replacement, Amy Coney Barrett, was nominated by President Donald Trump and swiftly confirmed by a Republican-led Senate.
When I profiled Ginsburg in 2019, I noted that her "future legacy, even among the progressive left, is unclear. Will she be remembered as a legal trailblazer who helped to shape the course of constitutional law? Or will she be burned in effigy for 'letting' Trump pick her replacement? Ginsburg's critics on the right, meanwhile, might just end up thanking her for sticking around for so long."
Judging by a recent article in Politico, some Ginsburg effigies may already be engulfed in flames. With Republican-appointed justices outnumbering their Democratic counterparts six to three on the Supreme Court, and the future of Roe v. Wade (1973) currently in serious doubt, even some of Ginsburg's biggest fans are now souring on her legacy. Here's Politico:
"It's certainly hard for me, now, to think of her work and of her—and not to, these days, work up a degree of regret and anger," says Dorothy Samuels, who authored The New York Times' legal editorials during her 30 years on the paper's editorial board. "This is so multilayered because she cared so passionately about advancing equality for everybody. She figured out a way to get women to be part of the constitution. And yet, what she has helped to give us is a court that for a long, long time is going to be undoing the equality rulings that she was part of."
The calls for Ginsburg to retire began as early as 2011, when Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy prophesied judicial trouble if Obama lost his reelection bid. "If Obama loses," Kennedy wrote in The New Republic, Ginsburg will "have contributed to a disaster" and "besmirched" her "estimable" record. Retire now before it is too late, he urged the justice. Three years later, Erwin Chemerinsky, then the dean of University of California, Irvine's law school, took to the pages of the Los Angeles Times to tell the then-81-year-old justice to pack it in. "Only by retiring this summer can she ensure that a Democratic president choose a successor who shares her views and values," he wrote.
Ginsburg was well aware of such retirement calls and often disparaged them in her public appearances. She liked her job just fine, thank you very much, she would say, and she would keep on keeping on as long as she was able to. Will her legacy as a hero of the left ultimately suffer for that?
One person who has seemingly taken the Ginsburg saga to heart is her longtime colleague Justice Stephen Breyer, who perfectly timed his retirement this year to ensure that President Joe Biden and a Democratic-controlled Senate had the exclusive say on his replacement, who has already been confirmed. Biden's pick? Ketanji Brown Jackson, a former Breyer clerk.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
No one is immune from the left's day zero thinking. Lucky for them there is no guillotine set up in the town square.
I even have made $30,030 just in five weeks straightforwardly working part-time from my apartment. (res-32) Immediately when I've lost my last business, I was exhausted and luckily I found this top online task & with this I am in a position to obtain thousands directly through my home. Everybody is able to get this best career & can gain more dollars on-line going this article.
that is what I do.>> https://Www.Profit97.Com
I even have made $30,030 just in five weeks straightforwardly working part-time from my apartment. (keb_16) Immediately when I've lost my last business, I was exhausted and luckily I found this top online task & with this I am in a position to obtain thousands directly through my home. Everybody is able to get this best career &
can gain more dollars online going this article.......... http://getjobs49.tk
More ads pimping for Trumpanzee shills and sockpuppets? They must have a LOT of someone else's money to spend...
who honestly cares...Roe was a bad decision from day one..kill it and send abortion decisions back to the States or pass a constitutional amendment. Reason needs to get on board with libertarian values and sorry but abortion on demand till birth isn't one..it is murder.
Notice all the folks quoted in the article..tribal death merchants these liberals and progressives are...
Conservatives are supposed to be the ones looking longingly at the past.
Well both liberals and conservatives (and progressives) see the Supreme Court as a tool for partisanship. I suspect Trump got at least 5% of his vote from the fact that some SCOTUS appointments were coming up. Why else would the Religious Right fall in line behind an unashamed philanderer? It was all about abortion and Trump promised to appoint pro-life judges. I know the Religious Right, that's my family and most of my friends, and abortion is the single issue that animated them. Nothing else comes close.
Liberals do the same from the other direction. Abortion is the single animating issue in American politics. No one gives a shit about inflation, or the budget, or taxes, or midnight basketball, or library drag queens. They'll bitch about it, but what makes them get out and vote on command like drones is abortion. Both sides. Both. Sides.
5%?
Cite?
He said "I suspect ...". Pure speculation. Why don't you lighten up, Francis?
Sight. (https://tinyurl.com/2kezntst)
You think it's higher? 5% of Trump's votes is just about 2.5% of the total votes.
I mean, seriously, a lot of conservative people didn't like Trump. A lot of conservatives are pro-life. And every pro-lifer knew that abortion could never be restricted without SCOTUS (an amendment, in either direction, is unrealistic.)
Yeah… the good thing about abortion is that libertarians in the new Libertaian/GOP alliance don’t give a shit about whether the state forces a women to have a kid she doesn’t want. The response, oh, 20 years ago would have been “you can go fuck yourself, pilgrim slaver.” But not now. Now Libertarians are just fine with that.
Which is fine by me! As a gay Black man who is GOP PROUD like Caitlin and Milo I know that issues of personal autonomy don’t extend to women who have smelly vaginas. Ewww. Gross.
I'm sorry: I don't take shit about not being libertarian enough from card-carrying communists.
He rapes children too.
No, conservatives see the SCOTUS as a tool of the constitution. But I can see where someone such as yourself might not grasp that.
The Obama Administration doing things like trying to mandate birth control coverage on all health insurance convinced the Religious Right that there was no compromise possible if the Democrats had control of the government. Trump may be a moral reprobate in his personal life but he was not going to be actively hostile to them as the Demschave proven themselves to be.
Hate and mysticism are powerful motivators. Stir in come collectivism and Nixon election subsidies and poof! Orange Hitler!
"a legal trailblazer who helped to shape the course of constitutional law? "
Seriously, did any of her "course shaping" contribute to advancing individual rights and upholding the Constitution?
Ginsburg, working with the national ACLU, stepped in after the local affiliate brought the case to the Supreme Court. But a closely divided court upheld the exemption as compensation for women who had suffered economic discrimination over the years.
Despite the unfavorable result, the Kahn case showed an important aspect of Ginsburg's approach: her willingness to work on behalf of men challenging gender discrimination. She reasoned that rigid attitudes about sex roles could harm everyone and that the all-male Supreme Court might more easily get the point in cases involving male plaintiffs.
She turned out to be correct, just not in the Kahn case.
Ginsburg represented widower Stephen Wiesenfeld in challenging a Social Security Act provision that provided parental benefits only to widows with minor children.
Wiesenfeld's wife had died in childbirth, so he was denied benefits even though he faced all of the challenges of single parenthood that a mother would have faced. The Supreme Court gave Wiesenfeld and Ginsburg a win in 1975, unanimously ruling that sex-based distinction unconstitutional.
And two years later, Ginsburg successfully represented Leon Goldfarb in his challenge to another sex-based provision of the Social Security Act: Widows automatically received survivor's benefits on the death of their husbands. But widowers could receive such benefits only if the men could prove that they were financially dependent on their wives' earnings.
Ginsburg also wrote an influential brief in Craig v. Boren, the 1976 case that established the current standard for evaluating the constitutionality of sex-based laws.
Like Wiesenfeld and Goldfarb, the challengers in the Craig case were men. Their claim seemed trivial: They objected to an Oklahoma law that allowed women to buy low-alcohol beer at age 18 but required men to be 21 to buy the same product.
https://www.wbur.org/news/2020/09/18/ruth-bader-ginsburg-womens-rights-supreme-court
This review of her work shines a light on the E.R.A.: By the 1970s, women had many privileges under the law that men did not, whereas there were virtually no instances where women were treated worse by the law. Women opponents of the ERA saw this, whereas women proponents ignored it. The issues that feminists cared about had to do social customs, not the law, meaning the ERA was only symbolic, and would actually have helped men more.
"The Supreme Court gave Wiesenfeld and Ginsburg a win in 1975, unanimously ruling that" the courts would render the ERA redundant, so don't bother.
so she went out of her way to help her tribe mates
No, the opposite in the case of the Constitution, as often as not. As for individual rights, some animals are more equal than others may be a succinct description of her impact. But, she does have action figures, comic books, t shirts, and all the other trappings with which the left-leaning/progressive religious adorn their icons.
Yeah her ruling on kelo that said the US does not believe in property right really changed the legal course
I did not agree with many things Ginsburg voted on, but I do agree that she was a remarkable justice. The idea that she was beholden to the angry entitled mob is just stupid. The point of being a Supreme Court Justice is not to enact the will of the masses, or cater to a particular partisan tactic, or even espouse a broad ideology. It's to adjudicate the law.
The idea that she should have retired at a point where a partisan president could have appointed a partisan replacement is stupid.
The law is the law and the point of SCOTUS is not to enshrine an ephemeral partisan platform but to judge the law.
Not that I am a fan of all their rulings. Holy shit, I'm still spitting nails after the Kelo rulings. Rrrrgh! But as bad as the SCOTUS can be, mob rule is even worse.
I'm still spitting nails after the Kelo rulings. Rrrrgh!
LOL
Really? What remarkable things did RBG actually accomplish?
^. nothing. she was a mediocre mind, singularly focused on abortion and supposed discrimination against women. In every other way she was outright stalinist, supporting anything the government wanted to do to you.
DeAnnP above cites a couple of cases where RBG came down against discrimination against men. A 9-0 ruling, however, is hardly "trail blazing." Is there any important cases where RBG was the swing vote to uphold individual liberty? Probably so, but one must weigh the entirety of her career on the bench.
I believe the cited cases were ones Ginsburg argued as a lawyer, not ones she ruled on as a judge. The Social Security one was in the 1970’s, 20 years before her appointment.
I don't see how men being turned into helpless victims by RBG is an "accomplishment", at least not in the positive sense.
She hated the constitution.
You’re a leftist, of course you loved her. She did your bidding.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haa haa haa haa haa haa haa haa haaa haaa haaa haaa haaaaa haaaaaaaàaaaaaaaaaaaàaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaàaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The insufficiently doctrinaire will go to the wall, and no one will tell you what sufficiently doctrinaire is.
The only ones blaming RBG are the ones who are apparently pretending Mitch McConnell didn't exist....
Well, fuck them. I'm not a Ruth Bader Ginsburg fan, but anyone who takes the stance described in the article is just a little bitch.
Those who go Rrrrgh!
It's just ungrateful. I hate ungratefulness. They don't disagree with her beliefs, they're just pissy that she made a strategic error late in life. If that's enough to sour a legacy, then they're moral midgets.
It wasn't just a strategic error, though. She clearly wasn't up to the job for several years before she finally let go of it.
So, ideological zealots are revisionist retards? Who knew?
Um... Long Dong Silver? Anita Hill?
Give them 10 years, and they'll hate RBG as much as any other white person.
She was the worst justice of the modern era, hands down. And I'm not even talking about abortion.
I'm sure they fault every SCOTUS justice that disagrees with them for not retiring early even if that means dying.
The dems made sure scalia "retired" on time
It appears that the same assholes that can beatify someone will shit on their grave overnight as required by wedge issue politics.
Maybe the media-Democrat-social justice mob circle jerk ought to be ignored.
And yet, what she has helped to give us is a court that for a long, long time is going to be undoing the equality rulings that she was part of.
If there is only one person standing between you and the undoing of "equality", maybe equality isn't really the right word for what you are looking for.
When it's all said and done progressives do not matter, so their opinion or judgment is meaningless. Their base is tiny but loud, they have accomplished nothing positive whatsoever, their policies are unpopular and as political and social movement they have peaked. This is the beginning of the end.
Why is anybody listening to these fools? Outside of a few coastal cities, nobody in the U.S. really cares what these people have to say.
I'm not an RBG fan, but it's hard to deny that she was influential, and that some of her work--Especially the work she did prior to joining the Supreme Court--was pretty important.
The absurdity is that nine people are appointed for life to make laws that affect the entire species of humanity. I'm sure it's very challenging having one's mortality be pertinent to cosmic reality. That's why there should be scores of supreme court justices or no supreme court at all.
You could apply that to congress as well or most of the federal govt
SCOTUS isn't supposed to make laws, Congress is.
And if there are momentous issues that "affect the entire species", Congress is welcome to pass laws any time they want.
Of course, Democrats can't get the votes together for their radical agenda, so they are trying to hijack SCOTUS to "pass laws" for them.
Your understanding of our republic is lacking. The judiciary does not make laws. You sure say stupid things for some with a ‘165 IQ’.
One of the reasons Roe may be overturned is the majority of the Court rejecting that 5hey have the authority to make law, like the Blackmun tried to do in Roe.
If laws change as a consequence of their decisions, they are making law.
if so they are destroying the constitution
No, they’re not. I’m surprised that even someone like you, with an IQ of 85, can’t understand that.
The LEFT loves GOVERNMENT CONTROL. Meaning the people work for the government and not the other way around. RGB was certainly efteft leaning but Democrats inject politics in to everything from what a woman is or what views you are allowed to voice. The SCOTUS is just another POWER CENTER for them to control like Hollywood, the Media, the Unions, the Education System, and the government. They want complete control of what you can say, do, and how you live.
^THIS^
The Supreme Court is not a place for Affirmative Action…
IMHO, Clarence Thomas, currently 73,should have retired two years ago, when he had a president and senate that would have appointed a replacement in his mold.
Is Damon Brute able to name three of these souring fans? I can name dozens of girl-bullying mystics who greeted Ruth's obituary with whoops of joy and plans to bring back Comstockism and bans on ALL birth control. Ram Johnston heads the list.
Critics from both sides don’t seem to recognize the difference between law and wants. RIP RBG. She didn’t like the RvW decision anyway.
Who really likes it?
Judging by the photos of rallies in the USA, Canada, Ireland, Argentina, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Low Countries, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, GB, Tunisia, Austria, France, Japan... women! In fact, every country not enthralled by coercive mystical bigots recognizes women as individuals not enslavable into involuntary labor. Civilized nations arrest all who shoot doctors. Jon at constitutionalism.blogspot.com explains the constitutional aspects so that even Comstockists can follow along.
Why blame RBG?
This rests 100% on the shoulders of Democrats, who, following the Casey decision in the early 1990s, could see the eventual ending of a SCOTUS upheld federal right to abortion.
At several points during the 8 year Clinton administration and also during the 8 year Obama administration Democrats had the chance to pass a federal law protecting abortion rights. Why didn't they?
Because holding women's rights hostage to the whims of an increasingly right-leaning court, they reasoned, would "motivate" women to come out and vote Democrat in November.
Using fear to manipulate women into voting for them so they could push through another (hopefully) liberal Supreme Court Justice was a cudgel they held over women's heads.
But Republicans and pro-lifers ended up being better at that game and now - far too late - Schumer passed some weak attempt at a law protecting abortion rights that could have been introduced any tome from 2008-2016, or from 1992-2000. He knew it would fail, but now he can claim "Democrats care about women".
They don't. If they did, they would have fixed this long ago.
Ramming Obamacare through caused them to eventually lose the senate and allowed trump to appoint 3 justices. That was the bigger cause.
Not the first time they lost Congress over ramming something through that was unpopular. I don't like a lot of what the Democrats are out to do, but I'll say this for them: Unlike the GOP, they understand being willing to take a temporary hit in order to accomplish something irreversible.
We'll basically never be rid of Obamacare, Roberts spiked the last chance to kill it off before it achieved government program immortality. Now the next time they're in a position to, they can build on it.
Blaming poor old Justice Ruth? So the upsurge of girl-bullying bigots chasing women across State lines to force them into involuntary labor is all her fault for not resurrecting like an imaginary God-bastard? This is like Tarl the libertarian-impersonating Trumpanzee whining that the Dems are undermining his resolve to not bully pregnant girls. How dare they regard them as unique, righteous individuals. MAGA Patreon-pelf must be raining down on digiting influenzas who declare women unpersons at conception.
In this case - the leftists have a point. She had health issues previously, and yet her ego kept her hanging in there, and then Trump got to replace her... decisions have consequences...