Talk:Ruth Bader Ginsburg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Columbia University WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Columbia University, her schools, environs, and people. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents

[edit] Famous Jewish people

Isn't there a section on this website where it lists famous Jewish peoples and there occupations? IF there is, shouldn't Ruth Bader Ginsburg be on it? 72.153.96.183 00:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] other webpages copy from wiki

Much of this page matches the following article word for word!!! http://www.politicalquest.org/index.php/cID/47/cf/president_william_jefferson_clinton/cssID/115/csf/bill_clinton_supreme_court_appointments_ruth_joan_bader_ginsburg Is this a problem?

Other sites on the web frequently steal material from Wikipedia articles, as they aren't copyright protected. This might be such an instance. SS451 00:32, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
Since I wrote the "Women's Rights Advocate" section here on wikipedia and came up with the title, and made the quirky decision to include information about her marriage and children under this section (I changed it recently), I can tell you that they stole from us, and not vice versa.

Just curious, but does Justice Ginsburg's personal background (i.e. who she married, who her children are, where she went to law school, etc.) truly belong in the "Women's Rights Advocate" section? --Micahbrwn 2 July 2005 05:54 (UTC)


[edit] Quality of article

The quality of this article has taken a nosedive since I last edited it. It used to be a short and useful article summarizing her views and career. Now it is a sprawling, overblown collection of current-events tidbits presented without any sense of perspective. Why is the snarky "Ginsburg Precedent" section needed? Can't we just summarize what happened in her confirmation hearings and move on? BTW, Ginsburg is not all that liberal or "activist" compared to Warren-era judges.

Well since you didn't sign your name I don't know what you edited, but I wrote the Ginsburg Precedent, and it is not "snarky", as far as I can see. If you are implying that I must somehow dislike Justice Ginsburg, that is not the case. This is a real argument that has been widely discussed in the media and at John Roberts' confirmation hearings. So I felt it belonged in her article. Considering that she has been on the Court for over a decade and has been involved in many major rulings as well as having her name repeatedly mentioned as a precedent for confirmation hearings, I don't think her article should be short on information. --JamesB3 04:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I unequivocally refuse to adopt a username on wikipedia. You never get credit for what you edited, but it makes it much easier to be smeared. Plus, the admins. will often hijack your personal page and make it impossible to control. Sue me if you wish.
I certainly have no desire to sue you. I only wondered what you had edited, since you complained that the whole thing had collapsed since your last edit. --JamesB3 01:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Needs balance

I have edited some of the references which made Justice Ginsburg appear to be out of step with the rest of the court; but this article needs some balance. Justice Ginsburg's early life is exemplary, worthy of a Horatio Alger book, and is a solid part of the reason she is on the Court today. Perhaps it should be emphasized more.

Since 1994 she's ruled on hundreds of cases -- but the discussion mentions only one, and that is one that conservatives inexplicably have taken umbrage at, for reasons that were minor to the decision (foreign precedents). A list of some of her more important majority decisions and some of her dissents would be good.

Agreed, and some of your additions were worthwhile, but gratuitously insulting Scalia and the House GOP risked having all your changes reverted. Instead I just trimmed out the excessiveness. You're welcome. Wasted Time R 2 July 2005 12:31 (UTC)

Reworked the judicial career section; the article was very one-sided. In particular, I deleted the reference to her alleged "left wing extremism", removed a reference to the magnanimity of the GOP in confirming her despite this "left wing extremism" (when it was a Republican senator who suggested that Ginsburg was a good choice), removed "Her judicial philosophy is generally one that Conservatives describe as "legislating from the bench."" because that again is a loaded term with indeterminate meaning (and no examples were provided); got rid of mention of her "activist" philosophy, because it is arguable that the activist ones are the conservatives who have repeatedly tried to declare federal laws unconstitutional (see particularly Lopez); and deleted the reference to Kelo, because she didn't write any opinion. (Both Souter & Ginsburg's articles mentioned this, but neither of them wrote an opinion in that case. Why include it then?) Geoff.green 03:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Some of my edits were reverted. Still think that the "considered to be a left wing extremist" is overblown, particularly since she's not really (being general counsel for the ACLU in the 1970s or a feminist does not automatically make one an "extremist", even in the eyes of "Republicans). If there's any evidence for this view, fine, but given that Orin Hatch recommended her, I doubt it. Second, the sentence "During her service on both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, Ginsburg is generally regarded as a very liberal judge on the Rehnquist Court" makes no sense. Read it closely. Third, in the following sentence I provided more detail, noting that she is more conservative on criminal matters. Why take it out? Fourth, please provide examples of her "legislating from the bench"? That's the general charge levied against so-called liberals, but I contend that she hasn't actually done anything like that. Fifth, the Kelo reference is, again, gratuitous. And sixth, the "evolving" sentence that was reinserted is an inaccurate slap, and I don't see why the other contributer felt the need to remove the reference to Scalia which, if anything else, is a nice example of how two people with wildly differing views can get along. Anyone else think I'm off base? Geoff.green 11:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The "liberal vs. conservative" one-dimensional spectrum doesn't suit analysis of Supreme Court decisions or justices very well, since judicial philosophies occur along several axes, but that's the simple-minded political culture you're caught up in. (Any sentence about American politics that uses the word "extremist" can usually be discarded as propaganda. The guys blowing themselves up on trains are extremists. Ginsburg and Scalia and anybody else who ever made it onto the Supreme Court are not.) This article will be unstable until the Roberts confirmation process is over, because people are framing the Ginsburg confirmation story in an effort to argue how Roberts should be dealt with. In any case, by most historical comparitive metrics I've seen Ginsburg is not as <insert-your-label> as William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, or William Brennan were. Wasted Time R 13:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
The article currently states "Ginsburg is generally regarded as a moderate to liberal judge". This is absurd, and clearly wrong. Ginsburg is actually generally regarded as the most liberal justice on the court. Before becoming a justice, she used to work for one of the most extreme liberal institutions in this country, the ACLU. No one who knows anything at all about the court can claim she is even remotely moderate. She is clearly and overwhelmingly a liberal. If you do not see her as such, that is because your own personal politics are so far to the left that in your personal POV she is moderate. This is, obviously, POV. The reality is that Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens are liberals, Kennedy and O'Connor are swing votes, and Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist are the conservatives. It is rather obvious that the editors of this article are big fans of Ginsburg, so much so that they are letting their own POV cheerleading result in outright lies, distortions, and misrepresentations. I am, by the way, a lawyer, and I have personally discussed the political biases of the various justices with many law students, lawyers, law professors, and judges. The only contention I see from these people is whether Kennedy and O'Connor are more 'moderate' or more 'conservative', with liberals citing Bush v Gore to claim these two are not moderate after all. So please, if you are going to hero worship Ginsburg, do so without re-writing history or changing facts. Ginsburg is a solid, strongly liberal justice and it is wrong to attempt to distort this. Kaltes 22 July 2005 8:36 (UTC)
Is she the most liberal justice on the court? Yes, probably. But this is an extremely "conservative' court from the persepective you're looking at -- it's the first court in 60+ years to strike down an Act of Congress for exceeding its interstate commerce powers; it's decided to radically broaden state sovereign immunity. The fact that she's the most liberal (in the commonly understood sense) does not make her a "left wing extremist," nor does the fact that she was general counsel of the ACLU 30 years ago make her some sort of wild-eyed radical. And you'll note the article does say (or did say -- may have been edited) that she votes with the liberal bloc on MOST issues. Nor does anything that you've said lend support for inclusion the standard conservative jab that she's legislating from the bench. Where has she done so? Why is, for example, voting to uphold the broad powers of government in eminent domain "legislating from the bench" while striking down gun-control laws on commece-clause grounds not "legislating from the bench"? As a commenter below stated, on the continuum of Supreme Court justices, she's nowhere near as liberal as some of the more liberal ones in history, and she's nowhere near as radical as Scalia & Thomas. Geoff.green 13:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
It is lovely that you are a "lawyer," but unfortunately, this does not end all debate on the matter. I should hope any reputable law school would admonish its students not to view Supreme Court jurisprudence solely in terms of its political results. Yes, anybody who has read the front page of the New York Times after a landmark decision knows to place the Justices in the respective order that you outlined. But anybody willing to look deeper would discover the gradual erosion of the court's liberal wing. As most scholars would note, the retirement of Justice Blackmun in 1994 marked, essentially, the end of an era. Justice Ginsburg, who was confirmed in the Senate with a 96-3 vote, represented a compromise on the part of a Clinton administration eager to placate Republicans. On the DC Court of Appeals, she generally took the "liberal" side, but not categorically--- and she notably sat to the right of several other judges on that bench. Her tenure on the Supreme Court has followed a similar trajectory, and it would simply be wrong to categorize her legal views on the basis of the Court's contentious 5-4 votes. For the purposes of Wikipedia, and in the context of legal history, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a moderate-to-liberal Justice. That is how we will categorize her. Thepinterpause 04:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Though I feel there's near-consensus that the current bench only has a conservative wing and a moderate wing, I attempted to sidestep such distinctions in the opening paragraph. Changed to "and is today considered one of the Court's more liberal justices," which considers her relative to her peers - in which context the "liberal" tag is more specific and more accurate.

Anyone have any thoughts on whether we can axe the neutrality alert? I of course think that my edits have made the article pretty neutral, but I'd like to see what other people think. Geoff.green 21:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Geoff: i agree with you completely about neutrality, although there's no way to make sure that the article will maintain integrity indefinitely. this "kaltes" person is being extreme, and for some pathological reason desperately wants to label ginsberg as the most liberal judge on the court, as if it would mean something or be informative. in fact, the "informing" it would do is signal to people which binary knee-jerk attitude to employ without even researching the details of ginsberg's career or legal decisions. quotes like "one of the most extreme liberal institutions in this country, the ACLU" just illustrate the meaningless way Kaltes wants to throw around words like "extreme" and "liberal." anyway, the last time i read the wiki it was extremely biased, making use of half-phrase quotes without any context in order to portray her as a feminazi whacko. which she isn't. the reason she's on the bench is because of republican support. but now these foaming-at-the-mouth people want to revise history (and discard many of her "conservative" decisions, not to mention the actually conservative actions of the ACLU against Big-government-encroachment) and slander her because some people can identify her as a "liberal." which, these days, is synonymous with "extremist" or "traitor" among the talking heads. it's truly a sad state of affairs. geoff, i agree with your appraisals. -OtherCommentator

Geoff Green appears to have a personal crusade to tone down or delete altogether any criticisms of RBG. His bias is striking in his comments above ("she's nowhere near as liberal as some of the more liberal ones in history, and she's nowhere near as radical as Scalia & Thomas"). Was it radical for the Marshall Court to assert the Court's authority? Was it radical to rule FOR Plessy v Ferguson? Was it radical to rule FOR Brown v BOE? Was it radical to rule FOR Roe v Wade? In my quite humble opinion, Geoff Green is all for the courts deciding how society should run itself so that elected representatives do not have to obtain the consent of the governed. Matt P206.195.19.42 21:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The issue of NPOV is the reason Segal/Cover was used. The whole point is that it's a neutral measure. That's why it was included. If you think Segal/Cover scores are not neutral measures of liberalism, take your concern to the Segal/Cover page, not Ginsburg's.

[edit] Execution of minors

A phrase in the section about the Supreme Court's recent opinion banning the death penalty for juvenilles originally stated "In addition to the fact that most of the states now have laws against executions in such cases." The second to most recent change changed it to read "In contrast to the fact that most of the states have laws allowing executions in such cases." I reverted to the original meaning (with some stylistic changes). According to the Supreme Court's opinion, 30 states prohibit the execution of minors -- 12 prohibit the death penalty overall, and 18 prohibit it as applied to juvenilles. Thus, most of the states do prohibit such executions. Geoff.green 12:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mild rewrite 2005-07-28

Please let me know what you think -- thanks! Geoff.green 02:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination comments 2005-09-07

Reapplied changes, reworded to achieve as close to NPOV as is possible. Please do not revert again -- please suggest changes here instead. Her nomination hearings were notable and should be mentioned in an article about her.

Oops, sorry, didn't see your request here (two ships crossing in the night, I think I started editing in the moment between when you saved your changes and wrote this note), so I made some modifications. I thought the changes were quite good, made some of my own. Let me know what you think... Geoff.green 01:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "I dissent" significant?

Do a search on Westlaw or Lexis for the words "I dissent" in the Supreme Court data base. You will see that there are many opinions in which the dissenting Justice used the phrase "I dissent" rather than "I respectfully dissent." Thus, this article's reference to Ginsburg's use of the phrase "I dissent" as being significant in any way is erroneous, and should be deleted.

Thank you, 130.49.174.63, for this contribution, that's interesting. I assume you've done such a search? I would be curious to see if the general use of "I respectfully dissent" is a recent innovation, and if in that context Ginsbrug's omission of the phrase "respectfully" is still notable. Thanks. (Also, I moved your comment down here just to make things a little more straightforward; it's also good if you place four tildes after your note, because that stamps the name of the commenter (or IP address, in your case) and date of the comment.) Geoff.green 01:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Though it is not extremely rare, "I dissent" is still considered disrespectful. It's generally used to indicate extreme dissatisfaction. Vincent Vecera 17:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sex Bias in the US Code

This is an important work of hers; it should remain on the wikipedia. To those who feel it necessary to remove it totally from the article, I am left to wonder why her writings would be off limits. People argue about liberal or conservative, some argue about the use of conservative and liberal labels with judges. Let the reader decide on the facts. Publius 06:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Several reasons. First, she was a co-author -- there were a number of authors, IIRC, and it was a report prepared on behalf of the US Commission of Civil Rights, not a personal treatise. Therefore, it is inappropriate to say that "she" suggested and "she" recommended throughout. Second, more specifically, as Tim Noah has pointed out on Slate [1], she did not "call for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are "less than 12 years old." Third, to the extent it is relevant, you don't simply list a series of purported suggestions from the report; you need to provide context, some sort of narrative, not just a copy-and-pastre from a Phyllis Schafley column [2] (even putting aside any potential copyright issues involved). Are these serious suggetsions? is she taking things to their logical conclusion? Does she feel strongly about any/all of these? None of that is present. Fourth, it appears you haven't even read the report, which leads me to wonder how you can at all vouch for the accuracy of the entry you made onto Wikipedia. And finally, some of the stuff is just laughable. Like this -- "She even wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of "plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns." (Page 52-53)". I'm not sure if you've read the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but over the years many of those have been rewritten to be clearer and in the process, oh by the way, making them gender-neutral. The Republic has not fallen. And if you've bothered to read some recent federal stauttes, in large part they avoid use of gendered pronouns where possible. That's why I removed it before, and why I'm removing it now. I would have no objection to a longer discussion of the report, but this is no such thing. Geoff.green 00:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ginsburg vs. republican government?

From the article:

In her speech, Ginsburg criticized republican government, and its legal use of resolutions.

Somehow, I doubt that a sitting Supreme Court justice would ever criticize republican (small "r") government. But I can't seem to find the full con/text* of the speech.

* That's the first time I've ever done that! Doesn't it look so...postmodern? Like an article called "De/constructing race in late capitalist superstructures" or something like that? Okay, back to work... --zenohockey 03:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute over relevance of international law

What does some of this stuff mean? Take the line: "On March 1, 2005, in the case of Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court (in an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy) ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Constitution forbids executing convicts who committed their crimes before turning 18. This decision was hailed as the end of democracy as it was known."

Hailed by who? The end of democracy as it was known? This isn't even good grammar! In fact this little tidbit seems to be finding its way into a lot of the Supreme Court judges' pages, I think somebody is grinding an ax.

I've deleted the sentance 'This decision was hailed as the end of democracy as it was known,' and I think the dispute over the relevence of international law should either become its own article or be deleted.

[edit] "Ginsburg precedent"

The source for some of the "details" in the Ginsburg precedent section appear to come from http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=907 . I doubt the reliaiblity of the source, considering the parroting of the "12-year-old" sexual consent non-issue. I propose to remove some of the details unless it's verified. (Also, about only one witness testifying "against" Ginsburg. First, you don't techinically testify "against" a moninee. Second, how many people testified "agaist" Roberts' nomination?)



Another issue with the "Ginsburg Precedent" section. What is going on with this paragraph? (emphasis mine):

Democrats had argued against Roberts' refusal to answer certain questions, saying that she made her views very clear, even if she did not comment on all specific matters, and that due to her lengthy tenure as a judge, many of her legal opinions were already available for review. Democrats also pointed out that Republican senator Orrin Hatch had recommended Ginsburg to then-President Clinton, which suggested Clinton worked in a bipartisan manner. Hatch rebuts saying that that he had not "recommended" her but suggested to Clinton she might be a candidate that would not receive great opposition.

I am pretty sure John Roberts is not a "she", last that I checked. I was going to rephrase this, but I couldn't quite decipher what was meant. Does anyone know what this is supposed to say? Slugmaster 02:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

Anyone know why Justice Ginsburg changed her name from Joan Ruth to Ruth Joan?Kiwidude 07:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I read her biography. There where 3 other girls named joan in her class, so she changed it to ruth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scourt214 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good friends?

Can anyone provide citation for the notion that Ginsburg and Scalia are "good friends"? What does that even mean? It is generally understood that the members of SCOTUS are cordial with each other, but unless anyone can cite their close friendship I think the "good friend" ref should be rvd.

I think I put that in there and I wish I had a good reference. I have heard it from several people "in the know" -- e..g, folks who have clerked for one or the other -- and they not infrequently do things like go the opera with their spouses and have dinner parties. Here is one reference that mentions it in passing http://www.slate.com/id/2077031 ; let me know if you think it's OK, and if there's no objection I'll reinsert the "good friend" comment. Geoff.green 16:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Its been pretty well documented that Ginsburg and Scalia were friends since well before they served on the Supreme Court together. The book Becoming Justice Blackmun mentions the fact that the two were good friends from the DC circuit. Apparently there was some concern that she would have trouble standing up to her friend Nino. The website Oyez gives a virtual tour of her Chambers, which includes pictures of the two of them on an elephant (that is no joke) and the two of them in an Opera. That doesn't mean they are close but he is the only sitting Justice whose photo she has in her office. However, I am not so sure their friendship is relevant for what is meant to be an encyclopedia entry.
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/tour/ginsburgchamber-from-introduction

[edit] Falling asleep during oral arguments

Ginsburg recently fell asleep while hearing oral arguments on the Texas redistricting case. Evidently, certain editors do not think this is a notable event. I am not certain I understand that point of view. Is falling asleep considered judicial privilege? How can a judge contribute to the discussion, ask questions or fully understand the context and setting of the answers if asleep? Falling asleep while the court is in session has happened before in lesser courts and it will happen again, but it cannot be considered good judicial practice. I am not aware of it happening in the Supreme Court. It raises the question of Ginsburg's health and capacity to perform her duties as a Supreme Court Justice. Ginsburg supporters do not get to decide unilaterally what is notable. This is an event that made the news and will no doubt be discussed until at least the case is decided. RonCram 00:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ron, the justices are not required to attend oral arguments at all and it is not uncommon for them not to when unable to do so. It is similarly common for justices to doze off often. Justice Thomas is known for sleeping often. I suspect the campaign to make hay of this comes from people dissatisfied with her jurisprudence. If you want to put sections about falling asleep at oral arguments into wikipedia, I suggest you include them for most of the Court. These people, regardless of their views, have an extremely, extremely difficult job that they continue to do well into life out of a sense of duty to their country. If they fall asleep occassionaly, so be it. This event did not "make news." It was a humorous side-comment in a piece. If news were made whenever a justice falls asleep, it'd need its own section of the paper. I suggest you lay off Justice Ginsburg. Vincent Vecera 00:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Vincent, Ginsburg's sleeping did make news in more than one publication in both news articles and op-ed pieces. Your contention that sleeping on the Supreme Court is common does not square with the facts. Show me one news article about any other justice who has fallen asleep in the last five years and I will drop my support to include this in the article. 69.230.201.134 16:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
This took about one second and is an oral advocate specifically saying this is both not terribly uncommon and not news: http://blogs.abcnews.com/orderinthecourt/2006/03/yesterday_was_k.html What I think is interesting is that it's never been covered as news before because it isn't news. Many right-wing commentators have seen it as one more opportunity, however, to attack this woman. Vincent Vecera 19:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This is incredible. I can't believe there are right wing dudes trying to make something out of this. Ginsburg falling asleep is not something uncommon. Justices Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan did so during their later years of service. Justice Thomas sometimes does it, and even goes as far as not opening the briefs of the cases, he just sits there and listens and seldom asks questions. More info on this can be found in Edward Lazarus' "Closed Chambers".<<Coburn_Pharr>> 22:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I can understand concern about a Supreme Court justice sleeping during arguments, but to criticize Ginsburg alone would have more to do with either dissatisfaction with Ginsburg for political reasons or a lack of knowledge about the justices, as Thomas is well known for sleeping through most proceedings and falling below the usual standard of intellectual rigorousness for the Supreme Court.

I would be interested to know what source claims that Ginsburg is the dumbest person on the court. I have usually heard that she comes in second only to Scalia for brains. And it is not easy to become a professor when you are dumb. Although I agree that it is not fair to claim that because Thomas does not grill the attornies he falls below a standard. He prefers to listen and his collegues, like Scalia, often ask enough questions.

Not only is sleeping on the bench not unheard of but some Justices are also well known for chatting, writting notes, and doing everything but listening while on the bench. As already mentioned Brennan was famous for this. I am not claiming that this behavior is acceptable. But everything the lawyer is saying has already been presented in their written brief. Unless the Justice has questions or wants to listen to the response to the questions of others then they don't always feel the need to pay attention. The article makes it seem like Ginsburg is the only one guilty of falling asleep on the bench.

In a way it is a judicial freedom. She has the ability to do as she pleases during oral arguments. She is not the only SCOTUS judge who has fallen asleep before, and it isn't really important —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.17.136.200 (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] "Controversy"?

Where do we get the idea that Ginsburg's sleeping at the bench is a "controversy"? There's nothing in this Wikipedia article that says it was somehow controversial, nor in the reference page to which the section links. Couldn't the sub-head just as easily (and more accurately) be named "Falling asleep during oral arguments," just as this section of the Talk page is? Msclguru 18:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roper

That section is grossly disproportionate here. Nothing wrong with it per se. However, it should be moved to the actual Roper article, with maybe a sentence or two saying she defended the ruling in a speech. Derex 05:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dispute over international law

i don't think the "dispute over relevance of internatonal law" section belongs in this article. Other justices who used international law don't have this in their article.

[edit] jurist career

The second sentence in the lede is, I believe, inaccurate; I'm posting it here to see what people think it should mean.

Having spent 13 years as a federal judge, but not being a career jurist, she is unique as a Supreme Court justice for having spent the majority of her career as an advocate for specific causes, as a lawyer for the National Organization for Women (NOW) and an in-house counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Here's the problem. "Not being a career jurist" (in addition to being awkwardly phrased) is not unique in the Court's history, nor, for that matter, in the Court today. Most of the justices were not "career jurists" as I understand the term. Is the uniqueness supposed to refer to her advocacy roles? That's not true, either; what about Thurgood Marshall, to take only the most obvious counter-example. I can't rewrite this sentence till I understand what people are trying to do with it. Help? --lquilter 18:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-considering 1st paragraph edit?

I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent edit of this article -- not that I'm sure that the data are necessarily "wrong." Rather, I'm persuaded that the strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is an unhelpful approach to this specific subject. I note that articles about other sitting Justices have been similarly "enhanced;" and I also believe those changes are no improvement.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, I would invite anyone to re-visit articles written about the following pairs of jurists.

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

At a minimum, I'm questioning this edit? It deserves to be reconsidered. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed it but didn't revert it because it wasn't vandalism or a a pointless internecine edit war which is all I apparently have time for these days. <g> anyway after your commentary I deleted it. will you follow-up and "un-enhance" the other sitting justices' articles to provide consistency? --Lquilter (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reed v. Reed (1971)

Ginsburg played an important in the Reed v. Reed case, and it should be noted somehow.

She was then a volunteer attorney with the ACLU, was the "architect of a comprehensive litigating strategy to end sex discrimination in the law." (http://www.supremecourthistory.org/05_learning/subs/05_e01.html). She was also one of the two chief lawyer for the plaintiff (http://law.jrank.org/pages/13163/Reed-v-Reed.html). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.103.185 (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)