While mourning continues for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and very rightly so, we should also understand that her unexcelled service on the Supreme Court almost never happened, and why.
He appointment nearly was stopped by those who found her too temperate for the job.
Ginsburg's opponents on these grounds were activists in several women's organizations. What they had against her was a speech.
In the spring of 1993, Ruth Ginsburg, who had been a judge on the Circuit Court of Appeals for 13 years, gave the James Madison Lecture on Constitutional Law at NYU.
Less than two weeks later, a vacancy occurred on the U.S. Supreme Court. The new president, Bill Clinton, got to make the appointment. New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan suggested that Clinton name Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Clinton's response: "The women are against her."
There was indeed a strong belief that feminists were opposed to putting Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. This impression was so strong that leaders of three major law organizations promoting gender equality felt compelled to issue a statement to the White House denying that they opposed Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Instead, they explained, they were not then supporting or opposing anyone. Thanks a lot.
Why was there even a question of feminist opposition to the lawyer who so effectively had argued their most important cases?