by Jo Freeman

 

Often called “the notorious RGB,” by her death a little over a year ago Ruth Bader Ginsburg had become an icon.  At the October 2 Women’s March for Abortion Justice she was featured in signs and banners.

 

Right, The Conversation, If you’re pro-life, you might already be pro-choice

 

Co-created with one of her former clerks, the book begins with a tribute to one of her oldest friends. UC Berkeley Law School professor Herma Hill Kay died in 2017.  This is followed by a conversation on RGB’s life with that former clerk, who is now a professor at that same law school.  In the middle of the book is Prof. Kay’s 1993 statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee supporting RGB’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

 

Apart from that, this book features a selection of Ginsburg’s legal writing.  In the first section, there is one appeals court brief and two transcripts of oral arguments before the Supreme Court.  All on gender equality, they illustrate Ginsburg’s strategy of arguing cases where men were the legal losers in the belief that the court would be more sympathetic.

 

Moritz concerned a section of the IRS code that allowed women, widowers and divorced men to take a tax deduction for the care of dependants.  The plaintiff was a never-married man who was caring for his mother.

 

Frontiero v. Richardson concerned the different standards for servicemen and women to get benefits for their dependent spouses.

 

Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld challenged a portion of the social security law which permitted widows but not widowers to collect special benefits to care for minor children.

 

The second section has excerpts from four of RGB’s Opinions while a Justice; one majority opinion and three dissents.  These include one dissent on race.  

 

In Shelby County v. Holder RGB criticized the majority for wiping out the requirement in the 1965 Voting Rights Act that proposals by covered jurisdictions to change election laws had to be cleared with the Justice Department before they could take effect.  Since the Court killed this section, covered jurisdictions have been having a field day changing voting laws to restrict participation and Congress is still trying to restore the former requirement.