Talk:Ruth Bader Ginsburg/Archive 1

Archive 1

Really? What did he say, exactly?

"Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter turned down Ginsburg for a clerkship position because she was a woman." If so, Frankfurter's exact words should be quoted. Did he say, "Ginsburg, if you were a man I would accept you, but you're a woman so I won't."? Otherwise, this seems suspiciously like feminist propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksoileau (talk • contribs) 19:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversy and Ginsburg

(1) Gay rights, and child pornography (2) Citing foreign law in SCOTUS decisions (3) Association with ACLU (4) Judicial activism in SCOTUS Jessemckay (talk) 23:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

Mild rewrite 2005-07-28

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

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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 sentence 'This decision was hailed as the end of democracy as it was known,' and I think the dispute over the relevance of international law should either become its own article or be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.106.224.2 (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2005

"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)

The "Ginsberg Precedent" section mentions a "following sentence" which is supposed to make something "clear"; but there is no such following sentence. Will someone please insert the sentence or otherwise explicate what is meant here? Rammer (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

"there are right wing dudes trying to make something out of this" So I suppose only right wing nuts expect justices to be capable of sustained alertness, or at least consciousness, while on official Supreme Court business?Kerry (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2010 (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)

"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)

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.71.79 (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2007

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.

• A1. Benjamin Cardozo
• A2. Learned Hand

• B1. John Marshall Harlan
• B2. John Marshall Harlan II

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)

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)

Article seems to be kinda low on facts and positions

After looking at some of the other supreme court justices wikis.. this seems severely lacking. One fourth of the page is devoted to the ginsburg precedent..while only about a 4th relates to her career and her positions on topics like the application of the amendments, .. important cases that have had effect on society and her positions taken in them (rather then links to a couple pages). take justice stevens for instance.. there is quite alot of info on that page. Her early life is interesting and all but her judical career and opinions should definatly take up more then that, as thats whats most important.. Also I read above about her sleeping during court.. to me.. when your on the highest court of the land and deciding things that will be used as precedent for along time.. sleeping is unacceptable.. no matter who it is, ginsburg or whoever, If you can't stay a wake during your job, especially when its that important of a job. it's time to retire. I don't care who else does it.. thats irrelevent. But thats just my opinion. Though I do think that her sleeping during court is something that warrents inclusion somewhere if its factual. Honestly I dont know much about who votes for what and what there positions are so I can't really update this but I hope someone does. thanks -Tracer9999 (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Ruth Bader Ginsburg was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I merged it. :) NickDupree (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Chrysler sale not applicable to this article.

Please stop adding this back in, it has nothing to do with Ginsburg. She did not issue a ruling, she merely referred the case to the full court (which declined to hear it). Her involvement is purely by chance, since she happens to be the one assigned to 2nd District appeals. It could just as easily been any of the other justices. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Deserves A Good Article Nomination

After some recent reworking, I believe the article deserves a GA review, so I'm nominating it. Uninvolved editors can officially review it here. NickDupree (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Failed The GA Nomination

And here's why.

Any help ya'll can give me in addressing the problems listed and implementing the reviewer's suggestions would be much appreciated. NickDupree (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Children in Infobox

Therequiembellishere made many changes to the Infobox, including eliminating Ginsburg's children's surnames and birthdates. I'm trying to understand first if there's a Wiki policy on this issue, particularly the surnames (couldn't find one but that doesn't mean there's not) and, if not, whether there's some practice or custom. I gotta say that eliminating the last names looks awful (to me anyway). Both children are important in their own right and using just their first names (with the implication that their surname is the same as their mother's) makes it look like they are still children and feels demeaning. Any thoughts?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Bbb23. I did remove their surnames for the reason you stated. Another reason is that when daughters of a politician marry and people start compounding the names with Jones-Smith, Smith (nee Jones), Smith (maiden name Jones) is looks even more atrocious. I also removed their birth years because it is my feeling that the infobox should pertain to the person it is for only and that the rest can be placed in the article itself. It gives the infobox a cleaner look and doesn't clutter it with a mass of information. I'm not sure what to make of your last statement about being demeaning to the children, though. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's that tough to list the child's surname at the time it's inserted in the Infobox. I don't think you have to include the nee stuff, just whatever the name is "now." Not sure what you mean about removing the names "for the reason you stated." I didn't state a reason. As for your question about "demeaning," children are often referred to by just their first names, whereas adults expect to be referred to by their full names. If I had a famous parent and saw only my first name listed (I'm an adult), I would feel as if I were being treated like a child, not an adult. Seeing just Jane and James listed just looks and feels wrong, not to mention a little forlorn. :-) BTW, is there a Wiki policy or guideline on this issue, or are we batting it about fresh?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd meant you were correct as to why I'd removed the names. And there isn't a policy on this at all, actually. And I wouldn't call this a battle by any means! Haha. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Not "battling" - "batting". Big difference. :-) I agree, we're keeping this very civil - the way it should be, I might add. But how do we resolve it?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't terribly mind the last names. You can add them back, if you like. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I will add them back, thanks, as their absence seems to bother me more than their presence bothers you. You're a very pleasant fellow.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't seen this! And you're very welcome. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

As an advocate, did she argue any cases in front of the Supreme Court prior to her appointment as a Justice? At least one other Justice profile lists their cases (as Solicitor General). 69.37.3.221 (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ideological descriptors of Ginsburg in comparison to Thomas and Scalia

In noticing a recent edit on the Clarence Thomas article, I saw that he is placed in the Conservatism in the United States category. Looking further at his article, I saw that he is described as "conservative" in various ways about eight times in the article, including the category inclusion. Looking at the Antonin Scalia article, I saw that he also is described as "conservative" in various ways about eight times, including the same category inclusion. Comparing those articles to the Ginsburg article, she is described as "liberal" only once and only the weakest terms: "generally she votes with the liberal wing of the Court," with no such placement in Liberalism in the United States category. There shouldn't be such a huge disparity in the articles of conservative and liberal justices. Drrll (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but this shouldn't be a numbers game. If the Thomas or Scalia article inappropriately uses the conservative label or gives it undue weight, the articles should be corrected. Similarly, if information can be appropriately added to the Ginsburg article about her liberalism, then it should be added. As for categories, my general impression is that categories are hit-and-miss in many instances. It's not one of the things that we look at closely because it doesn't stand out the way the article's language does. You probably noticed the Thomas category because of my recent removal of the Holy Cross category. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point about fixing inappropriate use in the Thomas and Scalia articles and adding appropriate uses in the Ginsburg article. I guess my concern was if editors were specifically trying to load up the Thomas and Scalia articles with "conservative" or keep "liberal" out of the Ginsburg article. I may make a few edits here and there, but it isn't a high priority for me. Yes, I did see the category upon your removal of the Holy Cross category--which I agree with. Drrll (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I figured that was your concern, and the numbers may support your concern. I just think looking at the articles for appropriateness or inappropriateness is a better way to go.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Gerson's critique

In the Supreme Court jurisprudence section of her judicial career there's a considerable portion about Michael Gerson's interpretation or opinion of a couple of sentences in an interview in the NYT. I read the interview and Michael Gerson's commentary and see little more than a speculative smear attempt, alleging Ginsburg and liberals are inclined toward eugenics. The bit may be relevant in Gerson's article, but the way its placed in this article does not really seem suitable or informative. Who is like God? (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There's only one sentence about Gerson's criticism - hardly a "considerable portion". I think what he says is an attempt to distort what Ginsburg said, but it's fairly relevant in juxtaposition to the NYT article and provides some counterpoint, even if some believe it's flawed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"because she was a woman"

This phrase was just deleted from the article, claiming no supporting documentation. I'd like to quote the source exactly:

"Justice Frankfurter was not, however, ready to hire a woman when the dean of Harvard Law School strongly recommended a former star student in 1960. He turned down Ruth Bader Ginsburg."

I'm not sure if it should go back in or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Found it http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/washington/30scotus.html still digging for their source. Uberhill 21:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberhill (talk • contribs)

The deleted phrase was "apparently because she was a woman". I've put the phrase back in. Source is good enough to include the phrase, particularly as qualified by "apparently".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I found a better source, inserted it in the article, and even took out the word "apparently" as the source states that Frankfurter said he wasn't ready to hire a woman.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

All that is presented in the Times article is anecdotal evidence in which an acquaintance of Frankfurter recollects that Frankfurter once said he wasn't ready to hire a woman. Does such third-hand information really substantiate anything? Unless Frankfurter published his reasons for not hiring Ginsburg, then we don't really KNOW his reasons, and it is not appropriate to speculate about them in Wikipedia.Kerry (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times, a reputable source, states: "Justice Frankfurter told Professor Sachs that while the candidate was impressive, he just wasn't ready to hire a woman and so couldn't offer a job to Ruth Bader Ginsburg." That's sufficient for the proposition in the article. Wikipedia doesn't insist on autobiographical material.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's a value judgment. If you don't speculate that Frankfurter was a sexist, you take nothing away from Ginsburg's law school accomplishments; not all top law graduates (male or female) get offered Supreme Court clerkships, so the fact she didn't get one is not a blemish on her record. If you do speculate, you sully the reputation of a great jurist without proper verification and you give minimal benefit to Ginsburg, actually casting her as a sore loser who plays the gender card.Kerry (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not speculating about anything. We're just reporting on what happened. Ginsburg has spoken a fair amount about unfair treatment of women. That doesn't "sully" her reputation. We're talking about 50 years ago. There was a lot of discrimination against women in the legal profession at that time. What Frankfurter did is not particularly surprising. For some of Ginsburg's views on the treatment of women by the legal profession in 1960, see here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you are NOT reporting on what happened. You are repeating a second-hand account of what someone says they remember Frankfurter saying. Because it fits your stereotypical image of men in 1960, you are willing to present it as factual.Kerry (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation

I was just reading one of the latest articles by professor of constitutional law Sanford Levinson, and came upon the following description of justice Ginsburg: "...perhaps the leading legal advocate for women’s rights in our history." [Sanford Levinson (2012). How I Lost My Constitutional Faith. Maryland Law Review, 71(4), 956-977] [this quote is on page 973]. Perhaps it deserves a place in the article --Accursius (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Development of opinions section

There is a general lack of books or biographies on Ginsburg, and perhaps one of the recent Toobin books covering her in one of his chapters could provide support and references for assessing importance of her various opinions. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

"Political party"

Given that federal and SCOTUS judges have to give up membership of political parties upon confirmation, is it a good idea to specify the "political party" of a judge in the infobox? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

What does "membership" mean, and why do you think membership is what the infobox field means rather than affiliation? What makes you think that a Supreme Court justice cannot be registered with a particular political party or even cannot be a "member" of a political party? Bear in mind that the code of conduct for federal judges does not apply to Supreme Court justices. Is there a special "rule" with respect to the justices?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Pancreatic cancer

Perhaps the article should mention the fact that it is very unusual to survive a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Such a diagnosis is almost always a death sentence. As a long-term survivor, RBG belongs to a very exclusive club! HandsomeMrToad (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120309143915/http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=177&contentid=253356 to http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=177&contentid=253356

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Tumblr site honoring Ruth Bader Ginsburg

How we got here: A short story.

• Tumblr site honoring what Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes and says. Ginsburg referenced this Tumblr site with approval at the end of an interview with National Law Journal. History of this Tumblr site, which article explains the title "Notorious R.B.G." of the Ginsburg Tumblr site and links to the video of the hip-hop song "Hypnotize" -- "Sometimes your words just hypnotize me."

--- Rednblu (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the Tumblr is ripe for being added as part of her cultural impact. There are numerous articles from reliable sources on Ginsburg as a pop culture figure, particularly since around 2012. Knope7 (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Egypt

While I generally think this article needs more information added, is there any reason why two paragraphs on a 2012 trip to Egypt should be included? It feels like a tangent as the significance of this trip on Justice Ginsburg's life is not readily apparent.Knope7 (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that hose paragraphs should be removed or condensed. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Improvement for Good Article Designation

The last attempt to have this article designated a "Good Article" provided some helpful feedback, much of which still seems like it could be applied to improve this article. I would like to add more references and expand on her notable Supreme Court opinions. Personally I think expanding on facets of the article would be more helpful at this time than paring down. (For example, I'm in favor of keeping the swearing in of Vice President Gore and even expanding on her pop culture influence because, as Slate points out, it's rare for Supreme Court justices to have well defined public images.) Justice Sonya Sotomayor has a very detailed page which is rated as a Good Article.

I know there are a number of editors making constructive edits on this page and I would very much welcome any discussion about how to elevate this article further.Knope7 (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Knope7, thanks so much for taking the initiative to jumpstart the conversation about improving this article. I think there is some great material in this article, but as the GA review points out, there are also some areas that could use improvement. Most significantly, this article makes little (if any) mention of the fact that Justice Ginsburg is widely regarded as a major figure in late-twentieth century history; this article should place much more emphasis on her work as a champion for gender equality and her recognition for her work. For example, Yale law professor Judith Resnik described Justice Ginsburg as "a leader" of the "social and political movements of the last century." Georgetown law professor Wendy W. WIlliams said that Justice Ginsburg's "impact on the law" during the 1970's "earned her the title 'the Thurgood Marshall of the women's movement' and secured her place in history." When describing Justice Ginsburg's work, Martha Minow wrote, "Very few individuals in history come close to the extraordinary and significant role played by Justice Ginsburg in the pursuit of justice before she joined the bench." Many other scholars have expressed similar remarks. Therefore, I propose we create a new section about her legacy as a major figure in late-twentieth century history, and we should also probably change the lead to emphasize this as well. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I think those are some great sources. I think the this articles lack of detail on her work on gender equality is a major weakness. Maybe a section on her advocacy on topics like gender equality and civil liberties would be helpful too.Knope7 (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

As I've been adding sources, I have been hiding some references to avoid over referencing while still making it clear that the information does have a reliable source. I mention this so if anyone else is doing the same, you can check to see if the source is already accounted for to avoid doing unnecessary work. I think sources are accounted for through the Early Career section. Knope7 (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Potential source for expanding jurisprudence section:

• Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sensible Pragmatismin Federal Jurisdictional Policy, OHIO STATE LAW JOURNAL

Source covering a variety of topics including international law, dissents/concurrences, the fourth amendment, and other topics:

• ESSAYS IN HONOR OFJUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG Knope7 (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Potential subsections for jurisprudence (I would encourage anyone try their hand and writing on any area from this list or any other area which might be appropriate)

• equal protection (likely split into gender/race/sexual orientation)
• due process
• international law
• death penalty
• civil procedure

Knope7 (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Ginsburg Precedent

I am increasingly troubled by the Ginsburg Precedent section. The article correctly states that Ginsburg was mentioned during Samuel Alito's confirmation hearing. She was mentioned 39 times. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109shrg25429/html/CHRG-109shrg25429.htm Most of these mentions are from Republican senators and I have not been able to find contemporaneous news articles discussing the so-called Ginsburg standard as it applies to Alito's hearing. It does look like a phrase or example employed by Republican senators, not a scholarly or even neutral term. Moreover, this New Yorker article implies Kennedy and Souter avoided answering specific questions and Comiskey article references a Frankfurterian tradition of avoiding particular questions.

I know that just because I am having trouble locating articles discussing the Ginsburg precedent/standard doesn't mean it wasn't written about. If anyone else can find better sources, that would be greatly appreciated. I am, however, becoming skeptical that this section is given out sized importance and that it is not correctly contextualized. If the Ginsburg standard is a phrase used a particular political purpose, it may still be worth mentioning. That context does matter. There is a difference between scholars citing Ginsburg as a marked shift in confirmation hearings and politicians using her as an example to fit a particular goal. Knope7 (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is a good New York Times article which mentions "Senators and conservative commentators" using the term Ginsburg precedent as well as giving a history of other prospective justices refusing to answer certain questions including Scalia and O'Connor. The article also mentions that Roberts as a young lawyer had advised that nominees should avoid giving specific answers. Given that the "Ginsburg Precedent" appears to invoke her name without truly being about her, I propose just tacking on a short paragraph about the term Ginsburg Precedent at the end of a section on Ginsburg's own confirmation hearing. Knope7 (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080708192947/http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~wrlr/index.html to http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~wrlr/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Validated the IA link correctly replaced reference to pegasus page from 2008: DutchTreat (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

People are repeatedly undoing an edit I made, which made the article comply with policies and guidelines better than it did before. So far four or five people have undone the edit, and not one of them has bothered to explain why. This is highly disruptive. See WP:REVEXP, and kindly in future explain your actions, if you indeed have an explanation for them. 86.187.163.107 (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe your edits are useless so everyone reverts it.→SeniorStar (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

If this refers to your removal of "notable cases," I agree with the decision to add the cases back. The article does need more detail on Ginsburg's Supreme Court jurisprudence, but I believe the solution is writing more, not removing the notable case list. Also, @BD2412: has provided an explanation in the most recent edit summary: "It is customary and informative to list notable cases for a recent Supreme Court Justice" Knope7 (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Revising 'In popular culture'

I added a movie in development starring Natalie Portman. It may have been put on hold, but I think it's significant as the script received attention as one of the best unproduced scripts of 2014 and again when Portman became attached to the project in 2015 and spoke about the project again in early 2016. I don't think the Cartoon Network show mention merits inclusion. I believe a number of shows have mentioned her name and unless a show dropping her name received a lot of attention for doing so or made some important critique, I don't think it's significant enough to include. I'm also ambivalent about including the coloring book. I've seen it mentioned a few times as part of a list of notable RBG items (T-shirts get the most mentions, also things like mugs, etc) so I think either it should be included among other items or otherwise just be excluded. Any thoughts on how to improve this section? I'm still hoping to get this article ready for a Good Article nomination and so I'm trying to keep that goal in mind with any clean-up of the section. Knope7 (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Joan Ruth Bader

There seems to be some evidence that her birth name was Joan Ruth Bader. (1) CNN (2) SCOTUS Blog interview with the co-authors of Ginsburg's book, (3) People's Lawyers: Crusaders for Justice in American History at page 353, (4) Federal Lawyer profile, (5) The Rehnquist Court: Justices, Rulings, and Legacy at page 90.. There was also previous discussion (without reliable sources) on the talk page which is now archived here. Any thoughts on whether this is enough to change her birth name in the article and if we chagne the name, which sources to use? Knope7 (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Ginsburg's book My Own Words confirms that she was born Joan Ruth and provides the explanation for the name switch. I will update the article accordingly. Knope7 (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Added details about her names from My Own Words. It's slightly awkward figuring out how to refer to RBG since she went by different names (Joan, Kiki, and Ruth). Please feel free to improve the wording for clarity. Knope7 (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

"Notable cases"

I removed this section because there is no possible objective criterion for inclusion in the list. It's just someone's opinion. It's nothing other than a bare list of case names anyway, which has no encyclopaedic value. One should, if these cases are notable, mention them in the flow of the text, in which you would also of course outline why they were significant.

Someone put the section back, saying there was a consensus on the talk page. I do not see any such consensus. I see a section where one person mentioned this section, and claimed that such a section was present in all articles about supreme court justices. I checked, and one of the current bench has a somewhat similar section while the rest don't. But if other articles violate policy, the thing to do is fix them and not damage this one. Unless you can describe a) the clear, neutral and unambiguous criteria for inclusion, and b) why you think a bare list of case names has encyclopaedic value, I do not see any convincing rationale for this list being in the article. 95.145.130.2 (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the "patronising idiots": I told you to go to the talk page (not to find something there), because you made an edit that was reverted. WP:BRD is a good rule to avoid edit warring. It's you who has to find consensus. I have no opinion in the matter at hand, the article just happens to be on my watchlist, and I think highly of Michael Bednarek's judgement. If you want my opinion: a bulleted list of cases is clearer to me than mentioning in the prose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

As Gerda mentioned, WP:BRD is a good rule. This section had been removed before (by an editor, like you, from London) and has been restored by six different editors in early December 2016, and now by two more. It's been part of the the article since 2004, so a decision to remove it needs consensus and the editor proposing a removal has the burden to argue the benefit of such removal; "I don't like it" doesn't count. That the list has grown from two to eleven shows that there's consensus to have such a list. The criterion for inclusion is stated by the section heading: "Notable cases" – each of them has its own Wikipedia article. I don't follow US legal matters much, but even I have heard of Bush v. Gore and Eldred v. Ashcroft, and it's of great encyclopedic value to have these cases listed here. It's a matter of taste, opportunity, aptitude and time whether a list or prose are more suitable, but that's never a reason to delete the list. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we have to make editorial choices about what is important all the time in big articles like this one. There are books written about Ginsburg's life and we can't include all of that detail so we make choices about what is important or notable. I suppose we could find a source stating that each case is "notable" or using some synonym. My understanding is that common practice doesn't require that.

As for prose, I would welcome collaboration on improving the prose in the jurisprudence section. There is another section about this on the talk page. I've been reading through some sources. I'm still looking for some good sources discussing her views on criminal procedure as that is an area that subverts the traditional left/right divide. Knope7 (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Jurisprudence

I'm still working on drafting more information to add to the jurisprudence section so that the article is comprehensive enough for Good Article Status. Here is a sandbox with a rough version of material which I might add once cleaned up. I am posting the sandbox so that anyone who wants to add to it, or use it as a starting point for their own draft, can do so. I've also found the following sources that I am trying to get a subscription to obtain: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Preliminary Assessment, Justice Ginsburg and the Judicial Role in Expanding "We the People": The Disability Rights Cases, The House that Ruth Built: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Gender and Justice. If anyone has other useful sources, please feel free to post them. Knope7 (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I've now expanded the jurisprudence section of the article. My next steps will be to request a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors, then to nominate for Good Article status. Both of those steps require stability. If you plan on making any major changes which might affect stability, please let me know so I can adjust the timing of the request and nomination. Any improvements, particularly those made with an eye toward to Good Article criteria, are of course always welcome. Knope7 (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

As many of you may have realized, this article is currently under GA review. For that reason, I would like to settle any disagreements here. Currently, there are two issues with the infobox.

First, what educational institutions should be mentioned in the infobox. I see Justices Thomas and Kennedy were cited as examples, but I think both neither are designated as Good Articles. The infobox says education, not where she's received her degree. For that reason, I would lean towards including Harvard. Also, for the concern that someone may not realize she did not receive a degree from Harvard, that is explained in the article. That's also the reason why a citation is not needed in the infobox to show she graduated from Columbia.

Second, is political party. I believe this has been an issue in the past with the consensus being not to list the policial affiliation of Supreme Court Justices. It does not add to the article to have that listed. Again, the article is clear she was appointed to the bench by Democrats.

Please feel free to share any thoughts on these issues. Knope7 (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

As the GA reviewer, I would like to hear other editors thoughts on whether the infobox should be very clear that she graduated from Columbia - given the fact that this is a BLP. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think BLP requires us to leave Harvard out of the infobox. It is not defamatory or an invasion of privacy to point out she attended Harvard. Her time at Harvard is reliably sourced and mentioned in the article. I think it's an issue up to consensus based on my reading of template:infobox person.

The editors involved in this issue were @Bbb23: and @Canadianfixerupper:, so I am notifying both of them. Knope7 (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

She went to Harvard. The education parameter is for schools the subject went to, not only graduated from. There's no reason not to include it in the infobox. BLP has zip to do with anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the version of the infobox with Harvard. Knope7 (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, just wanted to make sure. I will follow Bbb23's advice on this. I see we have a second opinion on the GA review. He left a few notes as well, just ping me when you are done working through those and we can pass the article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead

WP:LEAD includes the following: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles. This admonition should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead, but rather to harmonize coverage in the lead with material in the body of the article."

That does not require removing a sentence from the lead because it is only mentioned briefly in the article. The sentence in question is about Ginsburgg being paid less early in her career because she is a woman. While that one detail is mentioned once in the article, it ties into other instances of her being treated differently as a lawyer because of her gender. Knope7 (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

This also doesn't mean that adding information that isn't important enough is justifiable solely because it's not prohibited. That detail should be mentioned in the relevant section, but is WP:UNDUE in the lead. Natureium (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Natureium: I agree with Knope7. It's an important detail that ties together a theme in her biography and warrants mention in the lead.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

As @Bbb23: said, her being paid less hits on a recurring theme. Other examples of Ginsburg encountering gender discrimination personally that are mentioned in the body of the article include her being asked to justify taking the spot of a man in law school and having difficulty finding employment even though she was in the top of her class at an elite law school. One reason I chose to mention the pay disparity is that it is a concrete example and avoids using vague phrases or weasel words.

@Natureium:, do you have an alternate suggestion for how we could mention Ginsburg facing discrimination in the lead or do you object to object to including the information in any way? Also, I don't think that UNDUE justifies removing the information pending the outcome of this discussion. Knope7 (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ruth Bader Ginsburg/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seraphim System (talk · contribs) 01:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Images - there are several clustered in one section, but long sections of text with no images. I think this could be improved.

I moved somethings around. The images are all from the 1990s or later, so I did not place any early in the article. Knope7 (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

1. In the Jurisprudence section - the gender equality cases are part of 14th amendment equal protection jurisprudence. "Gender discrimination" would be more a more neutral subheading and better match secondary sources.

Changed Knope7 (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

1. In the litigation and advocacy section it should be clear where you are talking the fourteenth amendment. For example, "wherein the Supreme Court extended the protections of the Equal Protection Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] to women for the first time." Many of readers will not know what the Equal Protection Clause is, but they may know what the Fourteenth Amendment is (or at least what an Amendment is).

Added Fourteenth Amendment to the first mention of the Equal Protection Clause. Knope7 (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Similarly "Ginsburg filed a brief for the case Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976), challenging [whether] an Oklahoma statute imposing different minimum drinking ages for men and women [was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment]
2. The correct language for intermediate scrutiny is "substantially related" => The Court imposed [applied] what is known as "intermediate scrutiny" on laws discriminating based on gender, unless the government could show that a gender based classification was "substantially related" to an "important" government objective. You can't leave out substantially related here because that is what makes it "intermediate scrutiny" - for rational basis it is "rationally related" to a "legitimate legislative end" - if it was "rationally related" to an "important government objective" it would almost always pass.
3. Consider rewording "banning all gender discrimination" - there is no class against whom discrimination is "banned" entirely (see Korematsu and Adarand v. Pena)

The word "banned" is used in Toobin's New Yorker article, currently citation number 23. Knope7 (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It is technically correct - but he says "banned gender discrimination on the same terms as race discrimination" - the entire sentence is important, because racial discrimination itself is not banned. The fact that this wording will be misleading for many readers is why I would suggest briefly adding a more specialized source like Eskridge to explain the statement. Is racial discrimination banned? More or less - the standard of review is strict scrutiny and only rarely has discrimination on the basis of race been allowed (Japanese internment in Korematsu and affirmative action in Adarand) - Gender has been acknowledged as a "quasisuspect classification" - You can read more about Carolene and "suspect classifications" here - Eskridge says Boren recognized gender as a quasi-suspect classification and neither accepted nor renounced the political representation analysis Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this a comment on the one sentence or on the whole paragraph? The sentence relies on Toobin in saying that Ginsburg did not win a seminal ruling banning gender discrimination. Having reviewed the source again, I believe the sentence is accurate as written. To me, whether any discrimination is banned or distinguishing gender and race are tangential. Knope7 (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

My explanation may have been a little complicated - there is no form of discrimination that is absolutely banned under the the Equal Protection clause, including race based discrimination. What Toobin says is that she never won a case where gender discrimination would be subject to strict scrutiny (which race is.) It is not accurate without including "on the same terms as race discrimination" - because Toobin is not saying "she did not win on an absolute ban" - he is saying they created an intermediate scrutiny, instead of applying the strict scrutiny that applies to race. Eskridge gives some background information, which may be helpful to you, but it is not necessary to include it. But we have to get Toobin's statement correct - it is not about a "ban" - it is that the Court created intermediate scrutiny, instead of applying strict scrutiny. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to get too involved in the content, since I am reviewing - I certainly don't want to suggest major revisions during a review - in my view, this is a minor error, and the intermediate/strict scrutiny issue is entirely non-controversial (and could be cited directly to the cases, though it is not necessary.) I don't think it is a reason to deny GA, when it can be easily fixed - but since I have studied law, I also know it is not tangential - the 14th amendment doesn't ban discrimination in practice, what the Court does is review discrimination claims under three different standards, depending on the "class" being discriminated against. So what is unconstitutional when the class is African-Americans, may be constitutional if the class is prisoners. It was an extraordinary and major win when the Court created an intermediate scrutiny for women, but some people (like Eskridge, who is a major law professor at Yale) have mused aloud that the Court never fully justified the reasons for creating "intermediate scrutiny" - this is what Toobin is discussing, but in very simple plain terms. (Unfortunately, his choice of the word "ban" is not very helpful to his target audience of lay persons) Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully, I have also studied law and that informed my opinion that it is tangential. Whether other forms of discrimination are banned does not change the fact that there is no seminal ruling banning gender discrimination. Ginsburg received favorable rulings incrementally rolling back discrimination based on gender and that was her strategy. When taken together, those rulings changed the legal rights of women. The Toobin article cited is not a discussion of gender discrimination generally, he is writing a profile on Ginsburg and her role in changing laws.

I think reasonable people can disagree about the best way to present information. While sources like the New Yorker and The New York Times are not perfect, for an article like this they are very helpful as they are writing for a general audience, as we are here. I appreciate your concern about wanting the article to accurately explain complex legal ideas. I share that concern but I also don't want to obscure's Ginsburg's work or her role in events by placing the focus on a discussion of equal protection law more generally. Yesterday I made some small tweaks to the language in that section and I will look it over again after giving the source material another close look. Knope7 (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

But that is not what the source says - it says "a ban ... on the same terms as race discrimination." I appreciate that it is difficult to accurately represent this without discussing legal technicalities. Maybe an attributed quote to Toobin? Either way I have asked for a second opinion also, I am still new to GA reviews. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, I think the criteria are GA are satisfied - but some of the legal sections need refinement. I've highlighted the issues I noticed. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Second Opinion

I am just waiting for a second opinion, this is my second GA review so I am still learning and it would be better to have a second pair of eyes go over it before I close. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• Second opinion: @Seraphim System: Thank you for taking the time to review this. I hope you found GA reviews fun! It's a great way to get out of our areas of expertise/interest and appreciate what other editors do in other areas. @Knope7: Looks like a solid article! Here are a few things that caught my eye.

• Political party Democratic[1] - Remove the citation in the infobox per WP:INFOBOXREF (make sure it is already cited elsewhere, as a rule of thumb).

I recently mentioned on the article talk page that I would like to remove this parameter from the infobox. The political affiliation of justices is a touchy subject. The source cited refers to Ginsburg's voter registration. While I am sure it is accurate and a matter of public record, it does not seem like something worth adding to the body of the article. Knope7 (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Antonin Scalia is FA and also does not have political affiliation in the infobox, so if you want to remove it entirely, I think that would be fine. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have removed it. Knope7 (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• David Tatel - He is mentioned in the infobox but not mentioned anywhere else in the text. Please add him somewhere with a source attached to it and stating he was the successor.

Done. Knope7 (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Notable cases section - Completely unsourced.

It is sourced using legal citations which would verify she authored the opinions. Is there a type of source you have in mind for this? How to present the section has been a topic of conversation in the past with no better solution being apparent. Knope7 (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Is the issue notability of the case or simply verifying authorship? Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Verifying authorship. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 02:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The legal citation would verify authorship, but I can see why an inline citation might be helpful. If you would like a more traditional inline citation, I can use the Legal Information Institute. Would you like a citation after each case in the list or would using the citation at the end of the list be sufficient? Thanks! Knope7 (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there is any rule that the citations need to be linked, only verifiable. The long form legal citation (using USSC template, which is fine) is enough for verification, I don't think it needs a second citation. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• New York Times - Change to The New York Times for all mentions

Done. Knope7 (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• Italicized publishers - I saw that sometimes you italicized a publisher, like you did here with Los Angeles Times, but then did not do it here. Make sure this is consistent throughout all sources.
• Note b - Needs a period after the sentence.

Done. Knope7 (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• some progressives called for Ginsburg to retire - Whom exactly? Are they notable enough to state such a thing?

I have added a the words "lawyers and activists." The sources I chose for citations include prominent commentators or refer back to the larger conversation happening on the issue of Ginsburg retiring. I am not quite sure what you mean by are they notable to state such a thing. The individuals in the pieces cited are certainly notable although I refrained from naming individuals because it was more widespread than just a few people saying she should resign for the good of progressive causes. I didn't want to characterize it as Erwin Chemerinsky saying she should resign because as the source material indicates it was bigger than that. Knope7 (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how I feel about this, part of me thinks Chemerinsky is extremely notable and should be included, like "lawyers and activists, including Erwin Chemerinsky..." Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Sources in the intro - I generally think articles without references in the introduction are better for GA (see WP:LEADCITE). This helps keep the introduction more general and summarizes the article. Just make sure that the info is already cited elsewhere in the article.

I generally agree with this approach, although the guideline allows for some flexibility. I have added a source to the discussion of a Smithsonian portrait featuring all 4 female justices and so I removed that citation from the lead. The other citation is for Ginsburg's birth name. There has been some confusion on that issue in the past, which is why I think having the citation right there is helpful to maintaining the stability of the article. Knope7 (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Bennard, Kristina Silja (August 2005), The Confirmation Hearings of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Answering Questions While Maintaining Judicial Impartiality (PDF), Washington, D.C.: American Constitution Society, retrieved May 11, 2010[dead link][dead link] - Replace dead URL with this one. Just make sure to add the page.

Changed. Knope7 (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• "Remarks by Ruth Bader Ginsburg – United States Holocaust Memorial Museum". Ushmm.org. Retrieved November 4, 2015. - Change publisher to United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Done. I added the source date as well. I moved Ushmm.org to the website parameter and added United States Holocaust Memorial Museum as publisher. Please note that the template italicized the website and not the publisher. Knope7 (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Mears, Bill (February 23, 2009). "Ginsburg rejoins Supreme Court weeks after cancer surgery". www.cnn.com. Retrieved September 10, 2016. - CNN instead

Changed. Knope7 (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• DLC: Judge Not by William A. Galston Archived March 9, 2012, at the Wayback Machine. - Needs publisher.

Replaced with source with more complete quote. Knope7 (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

• "Project Vote Smart". Retrieved December 19, 2010. - Same here

Just realized that this leads to a general search engine for Project Vote Smart. I guess a full citation is not required for this.

Everything else looks great and I think this is ripe for promotion. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 16:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comments @Seraphim System: What do you think? I think the article is nearly ready. My concerns were mostly minor. As far as the Notable cases section, I think using the Template:Cite court would be ideal. I did another GA review a few days ago where we used it. Let me know what you think. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 03:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe Template:Ussc is essentially a more specific version of Cite court. Knope7 (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Is it possible to include a link for readers to go in case they need to verify authorship? ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 01:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The default rule for the template is not to include external links and the description of the template refers to Wikipedia:External links. It is possible to add external links to the template to any of four different websites that publish SCOTUS opinions. Knope7 (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The EL policy does mention rare exceptions, including templates. I think USSC template may be one of those — it does limit where you can link internally I believe? So you can only the link the cited case to some pre-selected databases like Justia. Bibleref is similar, and it is often used without ref tags. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@ComputerJA: @Knope7: If you guys have settled the EL question, let me know so I can close the review. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I went through and removed 'el=no' from the the notable cases list so now the pin cites link to the opinions on Justia. Knope7 (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I think we're good to go, I will close the review. Congrats, and thank you for your patience with the long review. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Notable cases

The question of notability and inclusion regarding cases has been raised by User:212.178.216.30. The content has been supported for inclusion by User:78.26. This section seeks to obtain a consensus. I reverted the edit which removed the content from the article to allow review and consideration by the community. However, I am not involved in the editing of this article. Operator873^CONNECT 02:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @Operator873: for starting a conversation about this. The "notable cases" list was in the article when it was passed to Good Article status and this section was addressed in the review, which can still be seen on the talk page. I think we should continue to keep the content in the article unless there is some new compelling reason to eliminate it. Knope7 (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I reverted for two reasons. One, this article has achieved Good Article status, as such it is generally accepted practice to discuss major changes before making them to the article. Second, I believe there was objective criteria, in that the header said "Notable" cases, in general, in Wikipedia, a topic is assumed to have notability if there is an article about the topic. These cases were important enough that there are entire articles devoted to them. Perhaps modifying the list here and there could improve the article, but I do not see how wholesale removal of notable cases Ginsburg was involved in improves understanding of the topic, namely Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

If the articles in the list are of significant importance to the topic, then they are either already mentioned in the article, or they should be. If they are mentioned in the article, there will be context - an explanation of what the case was, and why it was significant in relation to the topic of the article. The link in the list is then clearly redundant. Context like that is the very reason people read encyclopaedia articles. If they are not already mentioned, then the link in the list, just dumped there with no context, logic or explanation, is simply useless. It contains no information of any relevance to the article. Describing the removal of this list as "wholesale removal of notable cases Ginsburg was involved in" demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the situation. 212.178.216.30 (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not think it is accurate to say that any important decision Ginsburg wrote is mentioned in the article. I wrote much of the jurisprudence section. I could not include every significant opinion she has written in 20+ years on the bench. The notable case list predates my involvement in this article, but I think it is useful as a way to include more opinions than have been written about in the main text. The list is a decent sample of her most important opinions and has been refined over the course of years. There is a logic to it. I'm open to improving the list or the jurisprudence coverage, but real improvement would require more work than simply removing the list. Knope7 (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160624123710/http://www.law.columbia.edu/law_school/communications/reports/winter2004/bio to http://www.law.columbia.edu/law_school/communications/reports/winter2004/bio
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303003136/http://egypt.usembassy.gov/pr012812.html to http://egypt.usembassy.gov/pr012812.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210171837/http://egypt.usembassy.gov/pr20113.html to http://egypt.usembassy.gov/pr20113.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509091527/http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/news/library/2008/wucl_welcomes_justice_ruth_bad.html to http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/news/library/2008/wucl_welcomes_justice_ruth_bad.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130912112536/http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/antisemitism/voices/transcript/?content=20061109 to http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/antisemitism/voices/transcript/?content=20061109

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

In popular culture addition suggestion

Hello, I am a undergraduate student learning how to use Wikipedia for a gender studies course, so I apologize if I did this incorrectly or messed things up by adding a new talk section. After reading through the 'personal life' and 'in popular culture' sections a few things came to mind that I thought might be interesting to add. The first suggestion is in regards to the discussion of her personal collection of jabots, particularly her dissenting jabot, in that there is a following and burgeoning market growing online among fans for RBG dissent pins and necklaces as well as Etsy pages and DIY tutorials dedicated to creating imitations of her jabots. The second suggestion is that recently her personal trainer Bryant Johnson published a fitness book detailing her daily workout routines (the steps include illustrations of her demonstrating each exercise).

I thought these might be some interesting ideas to consider, research further and potentially add to the article. Thank you. (Lizmeuser (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC))

@Lizmeuser:, you set up a new section on the talk page perfectly. You raise some interesting points. I agree there is more out there on Ginsburg in popular culture. We would need reliable sources supporting any addition. Thanks for the suggestion and I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia. Knope7 (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding to "In popular culture" section

I have already removed a few sentences about the tv series New Girl. I am tempted to also remove the sentence about Deadpool 2. The reason being, these feel tacked on and not connected. Ginsburg's image appearing in a film or a character being named or her should be integrated. Adding a sentence for each new mention tends to make the article feel more like a list and takes away from the cohesion. I am leaving Deadpool for now while I attempt to find a consensus. My preference would be for a paragraph talking about times when her image or name has appeared in film and television and the significance. So something like, 'As Ginsburg's public profile continued to grow, she was increasingly mentioned in popular films, including x, y, z.' Of course any assertion would have to be sourced. Please let me know if you have any thoughts. Knope7 (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed the Notorious RBG video mention for a similar reason. The source cited didn't use the word viral. The NY Daily News reported the death of one of its creators and said the video had 30,000 views, which does not sound like a significant enough video. [3] Knope7 (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Famous quotes

I am not aware of any other articles with a "Famous quotes" section. If editors want to keep this section, please provide some reasoning or examples of other articles with similar sections. Otherwise, I think the section should be removed. Knope7 (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I already reverted the addition. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

That is what we have Wikiquote for. bd2412 T 02:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

academic honors

Did Ginsburg graduate with Latin honors from Cornell or Columbia Law? If she was tied for first, wouldn't she have graduated summa or magna cum laude? 98.10.165.90 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Sentence in the lead

I've noticed some back and forth on the following sentence in the lead "Ginsburg has received considerable attention in American popular culture; dubbed the "Notorious R.B.G.", she is seen as a symbol of public resistance, private resilience, and justice." I don't know when this sentence was first added, but I don't recall it being there during the GA process. I'm inclined to think it's a little bit too much fluff. I think it's worth discussing here to find a consensus for keeping it as is, altering it, or getting rid of it. Any thoughts? Knope7 (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "public resistance" refers to. Was she at protests or rallies? I don't see that in the article. I think this is more of a cultural phenomena and is already covered in the popular culture section. MartinezMD (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm okay with some amount of tweaking of the text, to conform with WP:LEAD (the text should summarize article body prose), but outright removal is not the answer. RBG is certainly a popular figure, more so than other supreme court justices. It's proper to convey something of this essence to the reader in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I removed that she is a symbol of the resistance. That sounds too political for a Justice and is not supported in the article. I removed a quote from 'In popular culture' that called her a symbol of the resistance and was followed by three sources, none of which included the quote in the article text (unless it was an embedded tweet). We need better sources than articles linking to a bunch of tweets. I think it's fine to note her popularity, but this is an encyclopedia and we shouldn't get carried away. Knope7 (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Education

"Years later, Griswold told me he didn’t ask the question to be unkind. He said there were still doubting Thomases on the faculty who thought it was unwise to admit women. So the dean wanted to be armed with stories from the women themselves, about what use they would make of their legal education, so that he could satisfy his dubious colleagues." -- It seems like this would be a relevant and helpful follow-up quote, if someone wouldn't mind adding it to the article in the correct place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:141a:43:c86b:7ea9:b366:ccd3 (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Name of surgeon

I've noticed several edits over whether the name of the surgeon who recently operated on Ginsburg should be included in the article. I think we should discuss and attempt to reach a consensus. I would vote not to include it. Ginsburg has had surgery numerous times and if the surgery went according to plan, I don't see the point of including that level of detail. Who performed the surgery is not important to an article about Ruth Bader Ginsburg's entire life. Knope7 (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Knope7, I removed it once, when I saw it included. The surgeon doesn't have her own wiki page. If it's really worth including the name of the surgeon, I say write the article first, and then we can talk about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above for the same reasons. Also perhaps applicably, William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Connor had cancer surgeries and no mention of their doctors either. RBG had a seemingly routine lobectomy with nothing notable about the surgeon's involvement. using the WP:BRD cycle, I'll remove the surgeon again until we decide whether they should be included. MartinezMD (talk)

An editor brandishing "MD" as part of a userID claims that since Valerie W. Rusch has no WP article, she is not notable? How pathetic! _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

83d40m, don't comment on commenters. Comment on articles. And Valerie Rusch doesn't have one. That doesn't mean she's not notable, but it does beg the question of why we should mention Rusch on RBG's article if she doesn't have her own. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe instead of attacking me, you should work on consensus building. There are thousands of doctors in existence. What would make this one notable? Then, even if notable, What would make mentioning her by name important in a simple lobectomy? Especially when I've shown two examples of other justices who had cancer surgery and no mention of their surgeon. And lastly, two other editors before me felt her inclusion wasn't indicated. Maybe you can address their points as well. MartinezMD (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• It was a routine surgery, and I can't see any particular reason why the name of the surgeon might be important. The surgeon themselves might be notable, but it seems like an extraneous detail in this article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Feminist References

Feminist references in the article reference articles which don't supply supporting resources. Therefore, they read as propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.93.213 (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry in what way does this qualify as propaganda?--Breawycker (talk to me!) 05:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I think getting specific would be helpful. Can you please discuss which entry in the article you mean? MartinezMD (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of party from scotus justice pages?

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges#Removal of party from scotus justice pages. jhawkinson (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

First public appearance since cancer surgery: 2.4.19

Time Magazine and a number of other MSM news sources reported Ginsburg appeared in public for the first time since her recent cancer surgery. She reportedly attended a concerted dedicated to her "life in the law" at the National Museum of Women in the Arts on Monday night, February 4, 2019. "The justice sat in the back of the darkened auditorium at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. The National Constitution Center, which sponsored the concert, did not permit photography." Without photographic evidence of her appearance at a concert dedicated to her, some have questioned whether she was actually there at all (leaving questions in some minds as to whether she is still alive).--Artaxerxes 02:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you proposing adding this text to the article? These online conspiracy theories are not significant enough for this article. Even the source cited is dismissive of the theories. We don't need to add material every time someone makes a comment about Ginsburg on the internet. Knope7 (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Knope7. We also must recognize that there is no notoriety when the press publishes such an article without any kind of proof, or using twitter users posts as proof. It's clear to everyone that the media is struggling with the shift to the internet and will publish sensational pieces for impressions (clicks) without doing any kind of fact checking, as it's in their best interest to stay relevant more than truthful. User:neuroelectronic 6 February 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.172.153 (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

First appearance back at court?

References

This has been added to ITN ... ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.48.102 (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2019

Ginsburg has received attention in American popular culture for her fiery liberal dissents and refusal to step down; she has been dubbed the "Notorious R.B.G."[2] The link at the end of the first section to the above line on "Notorious R.B.G." is incorrect. Please remove the link. Ripple.goyal (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the link. What specifically is wrong about it? MartinezMD (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

MartinezMD, I think the concern was not the reference, but the link, which was wrong, and I just removed. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"Notorious R.B.G."

We can't assume readers will necessarily know who The Notorious B.I.G. was. To those who don't, "Notorious R.B.G." will not make much sense. Worse, as the title is said to reflect her "fiery dissents" and "refusal to step down", an uninformed reader could easily assume that the epithet is intended to be an insult. Context is definitely in order here, although I'm unsure how to make the connection without introducing original research. For the moment, I'm going to add a piped link; perhaps others have better ideas? Joefromrandb (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb and Sphilbrick: Sphilbrick, I'm just letting you know that what you recently removed has been brought up here before. I do think some additional context is in order, but the piped link isn't vandalism. I understand why you thought it was, though, as I think the reference is unclear, even with the piped link, for those unfamiliar with this aspect of American culture. Maybe we should be explicit about the reference, with something like: Ginsburg has received attention in American popular culture for her fiery liberal dissents and refusal to step down. She has been dubbed the "Notorious R.B.G.", in reference to the rapper Notorious B.I.G. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 22:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Airplaneman, After I removed the link, it occurred to me that it may well not have been vandalism but deliberate. However, I was responding to an OTRS email to Wikimedia. The reader was pointing out what they believed to be an error. While it may have been deliberate, I think it can be confusing and I support your alternative wording. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I just added "in reference to the rapper Notorious B.I.G." to the last sentence of the lead clarifying it. I don't think we need any additional changes.MartinezMD (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding a reference tag is meaningless to its relevance in the lead. Mentioning that in the already very long lead is in poor taste and reads horribly partisan. Should be removed from the lead and added below. Incredibly poor taste and lack of impartial judgement that it's even placed in the lead to begin with. Is it really that significant to belong there? Absolutely not.Jakobees (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The last sentence is nonsense.

It looks like two separate sentences were inadvertently joined:

"In her concurring opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), a decision upholding Michigan Law School's affirmative action admissions policy, Ginsburg noted there was accord between the notion that affirmative action admissions policies would have an end point and agrees with international treaties designed to combat racial and gender based discrimination." West5414 (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requests

On 19 March 2020

In the "Health" section, third paragraph, Supreme is misspelled as "Supereme" [sic]. 108.56.165.128 (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Knope7 (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

On 19 March 2020

Ginsburg is also misspelled, see infra.

Gisnburg fell in her office at the Supereme Court, fracturing three ribs, for which she was hospitalization 108.56.165.128 (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! Knope7 (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

On 21 June 2020

In the infoboxes, please change the date she took office on the Court of Appeals from June 30, 1980 to June 18, 1980 and the date she took office om the Supreme Court from August 10, 1993 to August 5, 1993, as those are the dates she's listed as receiving her commissions on the Federal Judicial Center. 2601:241:301:4360:9133:7C6F:ED3A:289E (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Not done: The dates are correct as they are. While you are right about the dates that she received her commissions, a judge does not assume office until they take their judicial oath, which isn't necessarily administered on the same day that a commission is issued. The dates in the infobox are the dates on which she took her oaths, and are thus the dates on which she assumed her offices. See the third paragraph of the following section for further clarification on the start of her SCOTUS term: Ruth Bader Ginsburg#Nomination and confirmation. I hope that clears things up. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 00:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2020

Chang "Died of metastatic pancreatic cancer." to "Died of complications from metastatic pancreatic cancer." Dvinpayne (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done —valereee (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

In Fiction

Should we perhaps mention depictions of Ginsburg in fiction, such as SCP-5004 on the SCP Foundation writing project? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.37.144 (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2020

Please add (Use American English) tag into the article in order to prevent unregistered or registered editors for changing spelling from US to UK/Commonwealth spelling. Thanks. 118.96.188.179 (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hospitalization for possible infection

It's a close call, but I would probably say we should wait and see as to whether to include Ginsburg's most recent hospitalization for possible infection. We can't include every health update and if we don't even know definitively what is the cause, maybe it's better to wait and see if this merits inclusion. I've left it in pending discussion because it was added in good faith with a source. Knope7 (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Now that she's been discharged and more information's been reported, I don't believe undergoing a procedure to clean a bile duct stent merits inclusion. KyleJoan^talk 03:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed the most recent hospitalization along with the one in May 2020. I also changed some phrasing to avoid saying "on January 7, 22020, this happened." It gets overused. Knope7 (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Type of cancer

This is what Ginsburg's statement was

"On May 19, I began a course of chemotherapy (gemcitabine) to treat a recurrence of cancer. A periodic scan in February followed by a biopsy revealed lesions on my liver. My recent hospitalizations to remove gall stones and treat an infection were unrelated to this recurrence.

Immunotherapy first essayed proved unsuccessful. The chemotherapy course, however, is yielding positive results. Satisfied that my treatment course is now clear, I am providing this information.

My most recent scan on July 7 indicated significant reduction of the liver lesions and no new disease. I am tolerating chemotherapy well and am encouraged by the success of my current treatment. I will continue bi-weekly chemotherapy to keep my cancer at bay, and am able to maintain an active daily routine. Throughout, I have kept up with opinion writing and all other Court work.

I have often said I would remain a member of the Court as long as I can do the job full steam. I remain fully able to do that."

A lot of media said she has liver cancer, but in the statement she just says she has had a recurrence and had lesions on her liver (not necessarily liver cancer). Ginsburg has never had liver cancer previously I think, which makes it impossible to have a recurrence of a type of cancer she has never had before but unless i am wrong i think that was just the media misunderstanding the statement, therefore it has to be something different, since the phrase "liver cancer" was never mentioned in the actual statement. CNN is speculating it is a recurrence of pancreatic that metastastized. I don't think we should add that yet because it's speculation. But to get to the matter of the subject that's why I think the text under the Health section should be changed from "Ginsburg was once again receiving treatment for a recurrence of her liver cancer." to just "Ginsburg was once again receiving treatment for a recurrence of cancer". Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

That's fair, but exactly which one of her previous cancers may be at issue is unclear. Her previous cancers were colon (1999), pancreas (2009, 2019), and lung (2018). Magidin (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Hebrew Name

Bader Ginsburg's Hebrew Name is "Yitta Ruchel bas Tzirel Leah" (יטא רחל בת צירל לאה). The Hebrew name is used during Jewish Prayer to identify and pray for someone who is sick. What section does this belong in?

If it's a cultural rather than legal name, I would think it goes in the "Personal life" section MartinezMD (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It needs to be significant enough for inclusion. I'm skeptical as one of the two sources provided is a twitter thread, which would not be an acceptable source in this context. Are there examples of comparable articles that include a person's Hebrew name? Knope7 (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

References

I would agree that this is not significant, unless it has been widely reported in reliable sources for some reason. Right now, it should not be included. Magidin (talk)`

In additions: the Hebrew given name would just be "Yitta Ruchel" (or rather Yitta Rachel, with "ch" pronounced as in "loch", the correct Hewbrew pronunciation rather than the transliteration of the Yiddish pronunciation); "bat Tzieral Leah" is the matronymic (again, "bas" would be the Yiddish pronunciation of the Hebrew word, not the Hebrew one), not part of her "given name". Magidin (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

The last phrase of the introduction, before the Table of Contents, should read "in reference to her notable dissents." There's no deference involved there! ☺ Redlever (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

That was this edit where it was changed:MartinezMD (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Picture on Official Wikipedia (beta) app for Android

I'm not entirely sure if this should be posted here or somewhere else, so please let me know. The picture on the top of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's page on the "official Wikipedia (beta) app for Android" is not of RBG, it's a pic of the past Presidents. I don't know where to report this or how to change it. *I have posted a copy of this on the beta report page.* Dexy83 (talk) 06:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Is this possibley an Android issue? —valereee (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I definitely agree as I went onto the page and verified that the photo should be changed as it is not accurate. I got on to Wikipedia beta for android but could not edit the images. Jurisdicta (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I just checked. The image is displaying is the one in this template: Template:Modern liberalism in the United States sidebar. I'm not sure why the sidebar image is being prioritized over the infobox image. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed the sidebar. There is no “conservatism” sidebar on Antonin Scalia’s page, and I don’t think it’s useful or relevant here. That sort of thing is more suitable to a navbox or wikiproject template. Montanabw^(talk) 00:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Metastatic pancreatic cancer

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-dead/index.html

A lot of articles are saying that she died from metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Should this be changed or should it be left at pancreatic cancer? MikaelaArsenault (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The cause of death appears to be reported more as complications related to metastatic pancreatic cancer How would you feel about having the cause of death as complications relating to metastatic pancreatic cancer? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

You don't need "complications" added unless it was expected to go uncomplicated, like a routine surgery. Metastatic pancreatic cancer is more than sufficient. MartinezMD (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

We don't know for sure is the cancer is the cause of death itself, or if a complication as a result of treatment for the cancer was. She could have died due to sepsis from a poorly maintained chemo port etc. Anyways, all sources say complications of metastatic pancreatic cancer, so we say that too. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you name a cancer death that isn't some complication? They get a PE, they get dehydrated and hyperkalemic, etc. Unless they release some crucial detail, it's still the general cause imho as an editor. MartinezMD (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with “complications of metastatic pancreatic cancer,” per sources. if we need to weasel a little, we can say, “initial news reports state her cause of death as...” Montanabw^(talk) 02:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Succession

'U.S. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell vowed to bring a Trump nominee to replace Ginsburg to a vote in the Senate, arguing in part that precedents would support such a confirmation whereas "Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president's Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year."'

• saying his nominee would receive a vote on the Senate floor is not exactly the same as vowing to bring it himself
• the president's party currently aligns with that of the Senate majority
• needs further framing?--Artaxerxes (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

diff - I tried to frame it a little better in this diff. (For what it's worth, the McConnell quote in full is):

"In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia's death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president's second term. We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president's Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year. By contrast, Americans re-elected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise. President Trump's nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate."

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Noting Ginsburg's Death Coinciding with Rosh Hashanah

I don't know if it's relevant enough to be included, but a number of people have noted the religious significance of Ginsburg (who was Jewish) having died on the eve of Rosh Hashanah. I think it would be entirely appropriate to make a minor change to the death section along these lines:

Ginsburg died from complications of pancreatic cancer on September 18, 2020, at age 87 on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, a High Holiday that commemorates the Jewish New Year.

Thoughts?

Dagehu (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Interesting but in the end just coincidence. Unless sources start saying it's important, we need to leave it out. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Dagehu, This is trivial. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Fun Fact B: She died on what might've been her earlier Canadian counterpart Bertha Wilson's 97th birthday, and not just a day sooner. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Support Her passing falling on Rosh Hashanah received lots of media attention and she will always be remembered as the first Jewish woman to serve on the Supreme Court. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Pennsylvania2—I made this edit. It restores your original version. I think it is preferable to cite the specific rabbi. Bus stop (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it is trivial, and also runs into WP:PEACOCK territory with someone lauding her as the most righteous among the nations because of this superstitious good omen. Elizium23 (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Nobody lauded her as "the most righteous among the nations". From where are you deriving that? It is included because it is relevant to her life and her death. It may be "trivial" to you, but you are not the only person reading the article. WP:PEACOCK pertains to words with which one should exercise extra caution, Elizium23. How is WP:PEACOCK applicable? Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Name?

Was her legal name Joan Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Someone changed the introduction. cookie monster (2020) 755 20:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

She was born Joan Ruth Bader. I don't know that she ever went by Joan Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It was clearer before that her name was formerly Joan Ruth Bader. I don't know why that was changed. Knope7 (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

ActBlue donations

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is at work here. The article doesn't say donations were in her name, or donors cited her death as a reason, or they were solicited by her estate. I move to strike the clause about donations due to dubious relevance; and propose same action on ActBlue article where this is duplicated. Elizium23 (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree with respect to this article, which is why I moved the donations away from the part of the article that discusses mourners gathering outside of the Supeme Court. The timing is pretty clear that the donations are a reaction to her death (there are graphs showing the spike and I assume that is relected in sources), but that is also related to the new political reality of the open Supeme Court seat. I think its a different question whether the donations should be included in the ActBlue article. Knope7 (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be 'Bader Ginsburg' not 'Ginsburg' in all references to her using her last name?

She had two last names, people are treating her last name like its a middle name

Many women used their birth last name as a middle name. So her name was Ginsburg, Ruth Bader. Given name= Ruth Bader. Surname= Bader. See Maiden and married names. cookie monster (2020) 755 00:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Is the article subject to the discretionary sanctions for articles related to American politics? Jarble (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2020

Her nomination by Clinton was listed as June 14th to become a supreme court justice. I found from the Federal Judicial Center that the actual date was June 22nd. Site - https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/ginsburg-ruth-bader 108.56.186.210 (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Ginsburg's opinion on O. J. Simpson

I have been searching for references but cannot find them. They are obscure, but I remember reading them at the time. There was a fan of the Supreme Court who was a clerical worker at a law firm. Every year she spent her vacation at the opening week of SCOTUS in October. She did it year after year. Everybody knew her, the guards, the staff, even the justices. On the day OJ was acquitted, SCOTUS was in session. The superfan was there. She noticed that the justices were passing a note down the row. As a new justice, Justice Ginsburg was on the end. She was last to receive the note and raised an eyebrow. The superfan asked a guard what happened. He told her that it was a note announcing OJ's acquittal. It is a credible account and probably the only public record of her opinion on this case. I hope someone can find the backup for this so that it doesn't get lost to history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.37.58 (talk • contribs)

One eyebrow is not enough to make a statement about it.

Ginsburg had every opportunity to comment on the O.J. case during Snyder v. Louisiana in 2008. The case had to do with a prosecutor trying to scare the jury that a murderer might get away like O.J. did. Ginsburg made no statement implicit or explicit about what she thought of the O.J. verdict. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

This wouldn't be worth mentioning even if it did happen. Ikjbagl (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Justice Ginsburg's reaction does not seem to rise to the level that would warrant a mention in this article. Jurisdicta (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. The OJ trial was a global high profile case, invoking the the law. Ginsburg's reaction and opinion would give us a direct insight into her political and social position as a Supreme Court Justice, per her biography. If, and I say 'if', there are reliable sources that gives us such an insight the facts indeed belong in her biography. It would be a bit naive to assume she held no position on the matter. If she offered no opinion that by itself would say much to anyone who understands how high profile political entities are weary about committing one way or the other to a controversial issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

It's fine to have a strong opinion but you have no leverage with no source. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Even if there was a source I don't think the fact that she raised an eyebrow is notable. And we don't need her opinion on every famous case. In any case, the OJ Simpson case was decided by a jury verdict, not a judicial decision, so her opinion about it is no more important than anyone else's.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Seeking to improve meaning.

In one of her first cases she suggested that a woman shoould not be forced to have an abortion, to keep her job as was being done by a military job to a pregnant woman.

C Squitti (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

What case are you referring to? This article does not contain mentions of every opinion she ever wrote. If there is something you would like to have included, please include reliable sources to both verify that the information is factual and establish that is relevenat and significant. Knope7 (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the case is Struck v. Secretary of Defense. The case was mooted before it reached the Supreme Court. She wrote a merits brief, not an opinion. It was one of her earlier cases as an appellate litigator. Magidin (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

"My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."

At Special:Diff/979193236, the subject text and surroundings were removed. @FenderPlayer: I didn't quite understand your reasoning for removing this. It's a direct quote of Ginsburg of what she dictated in a statement a few days before her death, as relayed by the author of the (in-depth) NPR article cited. The statement itself has been widely quoted, and is not inconsistent with her earlier statements. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 10:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

As I look further, I guess "we don't have it" (yet). All those other sources (and I checked a dozen), even though the quote is in their headlines, are qualifying it with "according to NPR / Totenberg". I can't find any direct publication of the dictated statement or even confirmation from Clara Spera, to whom it was dictated. Hopefully, further clarity will be forthcoming. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 11:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

BBC posted an interview with Clara Spera on September 21, 2020 which clarified that this was the quote Ginsburg made. This article is independent of NPR. https://www.bbc.com/news/video_and_audio/headlines/54242205/ruth-bader-ginsburg-s-most-fervent-wish Here is a second link of the printed article from BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54238936 Jurisdicta (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Totenberg herself clarified on MSNBC yesterday that she checked with other people in the room, including Ginsburg's doctor. That's why NPR is a reliable source. We can trust that their editorial process vetted the claim before publishing it. We don't need multiple reliable sources to independently confirm this quote. Knope7 (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

That's absolute rubbish, Knope. NPR has been caught POV'ing away many times. We have to check what they say with other sources as we can.50.111.19.2 (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

There clearly was the potential for the quote to be imprecise, which is potentially why someone reverted it, and why I brought it here. Thanks, Jurisdicta, for finding the independent reporting. I added a second cite to the quote, which someone previously restored. I went with the video, even though I generally prefer the printed source, because it confirms the exact language. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, in an appearance on MSNBC on 2020-09-21, Totenberg stated that others in the room, including her doctor, witnessed her making the statement. My initial search for that MSNBC video was unsuccessful, and third-hand accounts of it are woven into articles that are otherwise fairly anti-Trump (and therefore could be seen as biased by some). It would be nice to have the MSNBC video of the fact-checking statement to put it to rest. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

"Notorious RBG" book

When searching for "Notorious RBG", the search result redirects to the Ruth Bader Ginsburg page, even if the search was specifically for "Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg", which separately redirects to Shana Knizhnik the author of that book. Would it make sense for there to be a disambiguation page for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.190.23 (talk) 03:21, September 21, 2020 (UTC)

Native Americans

I would recommend developing the section on her jurisprudence on Native Americans further. As it stands, it mentions two cases, only one of which was an opnion she authored. That is not sufficient to provide a balanced picture of her jurisprudence in this area. If it is not developed further, I think it should be removed. I am leaving it for now to give editors an opportunity to build on what's there. Knope7 (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the opportunity to develop the subsection further. Three other subsections mention only two or fewer cases each, only one of which (US v. Virginia) was an opinion she authored. We should rely on the Wikipedia pillar on reliable sources to establish the sufficiency of the Native Americans subsection. It includes detailed, verifiable citations to a variety of reliable sources: prominent national and local newspapers and news orgs, books published by notable publishers, and a law journal. Removal of reliably sourced text, especially when it provides due weight on a notable topic of her jurisprudence that is represented nowhere else in this article, should require overwhelming consensus. Care has also been taken to give NPOV and due weight to her later words and actions attempting to correct for her Sherrill ruling. Thank you. KinkyLipids (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to keep working on it. It is still heavy on criticism without explaining the some of the case holdings or her reasoning, which creates a POV problem. Knope7 (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Her reasoning for Strate and Sherrill have been added. I agree that explaining her reasoning in Sherrill would provide due weight on her POV as to why Sherrill was her greatest regret. Additionally since Ginsburg and her critics were in agreement on Sherrill, her POV is the same as her critics' POV, and no genuine dispute between them exists. Thus all POVs documented by the reliable sources have been presented. KinkyLipids (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Omnibus Judgeship Act of 1978

The expanded section on her Circuit Court appointment and service includes a redlined reference to the Omnibus Judgeship Act of 1978. It's not listed among the important legislation of the 95th United States Congress. I'm not sure what would be the best way to link to it, but in case someone does, it is Public Law 95-486, and originated as H.R. 7843 in that Congress. Magidin (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Eugenics

The accusation of supporting eugenics has been removed. It was cited with a Chicago Tribune article that was previously published as an op-ed opinion article in the Boston Herald. The eugenics accusation was also cited with an article by U.S. News & World Report, which is a college rankings website and not a reliable journalistic source. It is undue weight to a POV that is not reliably sourced and did not provide due weight on the reliably sourced facts of her work in the Nial Ruth Cox case. KinkyLipids (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2020

"Following the private ceremony, Ginsburg's casket was moved outdoors for the public could pay respects." The previous sentence should read "Following the private ceremony, Ginsburg's casket was moved outdoors so the public could pay their respects." 161.77.224.143 (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Dylsss (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request

The following section's reference does not provide any proof RBG ever "embraced the moniker". The interview is with an author and never touches on the justices personal feelings about the nickname.

She was playfully and notably dubbed "The Notorious R.B.G." by a law student, a reference to the late Brooklyn-born rapper The Notorious B.I.G., and she later embraced the moniker..

2. The wikipage says Justice Ginsburg's maternal grandparents came from Krakow, Poland. However, the sources below says her maternal grandparents were born in Austria/Austria-Hungary, modern day Ukraine, in a Oblast (province) near the birthplace of Justice Ginsburg's father.,,,.

Possible rewrite: "Her father was a Jewish emigrant from Proskuriv, Russia, modern day Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine. Her mother was born in New York in 1902 to Jewish emigrants from Austria/Austria-Hungary, modern day western Ukraine." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajkbfi4 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Edit request

Concerning accusations by the President’s tweets and others spreading questionable-(un)truths I'm requesting the following change or similar wording to the effect.

---

Ginsburg dictated in a statement through her granddaughter Clara Spera days before her death ...

Ginsburg dictated in a statement _to_ her granddaughter Clara Spera days before her death as witnessed by her doctor and several others in attendance ...

--:GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴^⍨talk 17:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2020

Ruth Bader Ginsburg zt"l Patricnel (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: This honorific is not typically included in Wikipedia articles unless it is used consistently in source material discussing the subject. If you can provide multiple published, reliable sources that are consistently using this in reference to her name then this can be considered. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

AfD

Editors who follow this page may have interest in the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

--2603:7000:2143:8500:8C2A:84CA:D15B:3FEC (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Martin Ginsburg's role in preemptively preparing vetting material

This is a decades old, minor anecdote that scholars of RBG (which I am not) might be interested in pursuing. (It is from a family/one-degree of separation source.) It may already be documented but I have not seen it. First, note that while many SCOTUS nominations involve consideration of a wide range of prospects, this nomination choice was particularly convoluted and extended almost three months. See Bill Clinton Supreme Court candidates#Ruth Bader Ginsburg nomination. The story is that when Byron White retired, RBG did not at first anticipate that she was a likely nominee, but Marty was convinced she had a shot and took the initiative to preemptively assemble the comprehensive background portfolio that is normally researched by a vetting team. As the other prospects fell away, RBG’s completed portfolio was delivered with the figurative ribbon around it, immediately giving the administration and key senate members confidence she could be confirmed. Note Clinton had prior nominations that had not gone so well. (P.S. Please do not contrive this anecdote as somehow being even a hint at a slight to RBG. The Ginsburgs were a devoted and loving team; Marty helped make sure she got the timely consideration she deserved.) This anecdote, if properly documented, would also be relevant to Martin’s page. Zatsugaku (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

not the first federal case to challenge involuntary sterilization

Regarding:

In 1973, the same year Roe v. Wade was decided, Ginsburg filed the first federal case to challenge involuntary sterilization,

This was far from the first case. Skinner v. Oklahoma was decided in 1942: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/316us535 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.55.33 (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, removed "first" from the text. Efbrazil (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Her final wish, and how it has been misinterpreted

Is this worth mentioning in the article?

Her famous final wish was "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed". Many referred to this as meaning she did no want to be replaced until after the election. It was widely discussed and quoted. However, Ginsburg, a careful user of language, said she wanted to to be replaced by "a new president". That specifically meant she did not want her replacement to be nominated by Trump, even if he won. That is a big difference. If not worth mentioning, leave it alone. Pete unseth (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Pete unseth, is this just your interpretation or are there WP:RS that suggest that as well? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

In any case, whether her wish was to be replaced after the election or after Trump was out of office is moot; neither interpretation was honored, so it seems pointless to discuss this in the article. Magidin (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2021

In the table on the right hand side of the page, RGB's children are listed by first name only. This is not really consistent with other pages I've seen. My suggestion is that their full names be listed. Gmclapp (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: where they share last names, I'm fairly sure that is the convention. See e.g. Joe Biden or Donald Trump for example. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2021

link Joan Ruth Bader Ginsburg page to Category:People from Midwood, Brooklyn Category:Midwood, Brooklyn Category:People from Brooklyn by neighborhood. 2603:7000:AD40:2997:9E7:1442:9A7F:1A99 (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The only mention of Midwood in the article is the temple she attended. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

What was her moms name

I don’t know 2601:243:2080:C630:4062:B65C:D5F2:8D23 (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

If you'd read the article, you'd know it was Celia Amster. Acroterion (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Citation #120 is not a credible source

There's an article cited here that is citing false, unverifiable information from a non-reliable source. Citation #120 links to an article from the Spokesman Review (claiming that RBG regrets her decision in the Oneida 2005 case), but that Spokesman article itself is making its claim based on information from a non-credible "news" site, the so-called Buffalo Chronicle. The Buffalo Chronicle has had numerous credibility issues raised by other publications. Matthew Ricchiazzi is the owner and editor of the Buffalo Chronicle.

Buzzfeed wrote about Matthew Ricchiazzi and the Buffalo Chronicle below: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/matthew-ricchiazzi-buffalo-chronicle-trudeau-claims

A quote from the Buzzfeed Article: "Since the beginning of the year, the Buffalo Chronicle has published unsigned articles based on unnamed sources that allege backroom dealings at the highest levels of the Canadian government. Several of the stories have been deemed false or unsupported by news organizations, including the Agence France-Presse, which was contracted by Facebook to debunk fake news."

The BBC also wrote an article on Matthew Ricchiazzi and the Buffalo Chronicle. Link below: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-55005815 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historiantruth123 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The fact that this Wikipedia article is perpetuating information from the Buffalo Chronicle, a noncredible source, damages the integrity of the information presented. It really needs to be removed to maintain the article's integrity.

According to the Buzzfeed article, Twitter deleted Ricchiazzi's Twitter account, as well as the Buffalo Chronicle's Twitter account, due to his actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historiantruth123 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

NOTE: On 2/15/2022, the citation has now been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historiantruth123 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Military spouse

I reverted this mention as there is no source provided that being a "former military spouse" is particularly notable in the context of her appointment to SCOTUS. (Her husband was a reservist and was called up for what appears to be at most 2 years of service very early in their marriage.) A related discussion is at Talk:Sandra_Day_O'Connor#Military_spouse. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. As the Supreme Court Historical Society has stated, veterans are important in the Supreme Court because military service "provides a special perspectiveon the intersecting powers of the federal government," and "Justices who have served in the armed forces prior to serving on the Court have additional practical experience in how those powers function.” Again, you have not proven how that is not significant or unique, as is your burden.

Indeed, the Supreme Court itself tracks how many of its members have served in the military.

Further, at least one peer-reviewed academic article has discussed how military service impacts the Supreme Court justice's perspectives while on the Court. See, e.g., Diane Marie Amann, John Paul Stevens, Human Rights Judge, 74 Fordham L. Rev. 1569, 1599 (2006). Specifically with reference to their thoughts on capital punishment. Another article discussed "how military service may have influenced Justice Stevens's decision-making process." Eugene R. Fidell, Justice John Paul Stevens and Judicial Deference in Military Matters, 43 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 999, 1010 (2010). There is no shortage of decades of articles discussing the impact of military service on Supreme Court justices.

And one legal blogs specifically mentions Ginsburg's service as relevant.

Those who has brought up this topic has a personal distaste for military service members and has been trying to erase the military from multiple wiki pages. For example, 1, 2, 3. AnubisIbizu (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The Supreme Court Historical Society is not a reliable source, and one legal blog mentioning it does not establish WP:WEIGHT. Your comment assuming others have a personal distaste for military service members is WP:UNCIVIL – Muboshgu (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

But you are not adding information about military service. You are adding information about military service (sometimes limited service) by spouses. The information about number of sitting justices who are veterans is probably relevant (though the drop in veterans compared to the 1950s should be considered against the background of the end of the draft and the switch to an all-volunteer army). But generally going out of the way to discuss family members' experience is not relevant. We don't add the fact that Gorsuch's mother was EPA administrator when discussing justices' Executive branch experience, for example. Adding that Ginsburg's husband was briefly in the military is rather strained. Magidin (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep. I see the statistic as historically significant. Seems like only two people in the world were military spouses and sat on SCOTUS. The jurisprudential effect adds some inferential significance but the point is the uniqueness of the fact, which is obviously noteworthy. Separately, many articles discuss how being a military spouse is just as good as being in the military, and we know they affect thinking. So there is added effect. This is unique, noteworthy, and important. The EPA administrator point is a gaslight, as that employment does not confer a protected status or identity (which veteran and military spouse both are under federal U.S. law, like race, age, disability, etc.). Traynreck (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC) — Traynreck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Striking edit made by a sockpuppet. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

RBG Hall at Cornell University named for her

https://scl.cornell.edu/residential-life/housing/campus-housing/first-year-undergraduates/residence-halls/ruth-bader-ginsburg-hall 128.84.125.174 (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Ruth Bader Ginsburg 2016 portrait.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for March 15, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-03-15. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. The image is scheduled to run on the 90th anniversary of her birth. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (March 15, 1933 – September 18, 2020) was an American lawyer and jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1993 until her death in 2020. She was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton to replace retiring justice Byron White, and at the time was generally viewed as a moderate consensus-builder. She eventually became part of the liberal wing of the Supreme Court as the Court shifted to the right over time. Ginsburg was the first Jewish woman and the second woman to serve on the Supreme Court, after Sandra Day O'Connor. During her tenure, Ginsburg wrote notable majority opinions, including United States v. Virginia (1996), Olmstead v. L.C. (1999), Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. (2000), and City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York (2005). This official photographic portrait of Ginsburg was taken by Supreme Court photographer Steve Petteway in 2016.

Photograph credit: Steve Petteway

Recently featured:

• Golden Delicious
• Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III
• Rhesus macaque

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2023

A few lines down in the "In Popular Culture" section: "contented" should be changed to "contents" – the noun has been incorrectly transformed into the alternate-meaning verb formulation of the root word. Learnedgopher (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2023

I think there are enough critiques of Ginsburg's City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York decision by Indigenous people and scholars to merit mentioning that it provoked those responses. Many reports of the Vatican's recent decision to repudiate the discovery doctrine cite that decision as the most recent use of the concept, so it's clearly part of her legacy. Pr4xer0 (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2023

In the first paragraph, it says: "She eventually became part of the liberal wing of the Court as the Court shifted to the right over time." This is unsourced and highly controversial. 174.255.1.103 (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the request, and it's easiest to simply delete the sentence. It adds little other than opinion, and is unsourced. I moved the wiki link to the next location mentioning her liberal views. Efbrazil (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I additionally moved forward content that was sourced and covered her liberal leanings to replace what was deleted. I think it overall reads better now and removes redundancy from an over-long lead. Efbrazil (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that this text was "unsourced and highly controversial"—it's widely discussed in sources and fully cited in the article body. Not at all controversial. Binksternet (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for my mangled comment in edit history, entered accidentally. It's fair to say existing text wasn't wrong, but I do think the redundancy in the text should be removed, and the third paragraph shortened. See if what's there now works for you. Efbrazil (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

You have mixed up the 1990s "moderate" view with the eventual liberal view of her. Her position changed over time, but you erased that fact. You told the reader she was immediately seen as liberal, which is not true. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

LA Times source further in the article is clear she was seen as center left. For instance:

People for the American Way, a liberal group, called her “a significant improvement” over other recent nominees, but cited questions about her stands on “access to the courts, privacy rights, and her capacity to forge effective coalitions among justices on the moderate-liberal wings of the court.”

And:

Clinton was said to have sought a moderate who would move slightly to the left a court that often splits, 5 to 4, on contentious issues.

It's not accurate to say that she started out dead center. She was chosen to pull the court to the left. Efbrazil (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

On reviewing some more sources I removed the "left-leaning" part in front of moderate as I couldn't find a source from the time that made that explicit. Mostly it appears she was a consensus choice, satisfying to both liberals and conservatives given that she was being chosed by a democratic president. Efbrazil (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Death and Succession

The very end of the last paragraph under the 'Death and Succession' tab reads: "Days before her death, Ginsburg dictated a statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera, as heard by Ginsburg's doctor and others in the room at the time: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."[206][207][208][209] Despite Ginsburg's request, President Trump's pick to replace her, Amy Coney Barrett, was confirmed by the Senate on October 27."

Is this information relevant? If it is, is it fair to say that the Senate confirmed her successor 'despite her request,' or rather, that her request had no bearing on the proceedings at all? 174.213.161.82 (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I removed "Despite her request" from the sentence as it offered little of substance and could give the appearance of bias. Certainly her request has little bearing on what followed her death, and the nomination was pushed through "despite" many points of opposition. Efbrazil (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2023

In the recognition section, the item appears as:

 Also in 2023, Ginsburg will be featured on a USPS Forever stamp. The stamp was designed by art director Ethel Kessler, using an oil painting by Michael J. Deas based on a photograph by Philip Bermingham.

Please add: This stamp will be issued on 02 OCT 2023, with the First-Day-of-Issue city being Washington D.C. More News of any 'Issue Ceremony' will be announced by the USPS about 4-6 weeks before that date. ( Locations/Time/Presenters/Ways to waive admission fees/ect. ) Lefty1998 (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Cultural impact inclusions?

For editors who are interested, I came across this interesting article about an exhibit at the Heritage Society Museum in Houston, Texas. The sculptor has created bronze versions of the collars of a number of notable women "who wore collars and changed history", including our RBG. The exhibit is called "Woman, the Spirit of the Universe".

"Ever since a RBG collar was placed on the 'Fearless Girl' bronze sculpture off Wall Street, young women -- usually lawyers -- have been wearing Ruth Bader Ginsburg pins on their collars," Johnson says. "She brought it into the 21st century."

"From Harriet Tubman to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, bronze collar exhibit celebrates 21 trailblazing women" - https://www.houstonchronicle.com/lifestyle/article/From-Harriet-Tubman-to-Ruth-Bader-Ginsberg-17334847.php#photo-22747026

---

"An ad placed in the Sunday edition of the New York Times by State Street Global Advisors showed the statue wearing a lace collar similar to Ginsburg's iconic one, with the words "Here's to the original" above."

"NYC's 'Fearless Girl' statue dons white, lace collar to honor Ruth Bader Ginsburg" - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/21/ruth-bader-ginsburg-fearless-girl-statue-dons-white-lace-collar/5852310002/

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It is better if we stick to facts rather than subjective accolades. This is especially true given her mixed legacy. Just as she can be lionized as an inspiration, she can also be demonized as the justice who effectively overturned Roe v Wade by not resigning when Obama and others asked her to so that a liberal appointee could replace her. Efbrazil (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2023

Ginsburg is featured in a photograph in Law & Order: SVU’s Olivia Benson’s office, starting in season 20. 2604:3D08:1C7B:4000:A8B2:F64F:EA74:7628 (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2023

In the "See also" section, please add the following:

• List of United States federal judges by longevity of service 98.228.137.44 (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

On which she is presently 284th, somewhere in the middle of the pack. I don't think this is a desirable change. Izno (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't the "associate justice" text of articles for SCOTUS capitalized to "Associate Justice?"

Associate Justice is a proper phrase that should be capitalized with the A and the J. It is titled that way in most reliable sources as well.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/supreme-judicial-court-justices

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-judicial-branch/

https://www.congress.gov/nomination/116th-congress/2252

DocZach (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

See MOS:JOBTITLES for the explanation on when we capitalize and when we don't. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Controvery

Alot of the things under the tab 'Popular Culture' could also be listed under a tab titled 'Controversies' or something along those lines. Technically there was alot of humans who spoke out against a Judge doing what she was. There was also humans in favor of it. Either stance a human has on it is there own, but it's starting to get disgusting the amount of articles on here that give a opinion, then only include one perspective. 2601:45:500:B850:3829:6EC7:3B28:5D4A (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2024

Change first reference to simply "Obama" in first paragraph to "President Barack Obama". Breisnshine (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done 〜 Askarion ✉ 20:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Conservative vs Right-wing vs Right of Center to describe Musk and Murdoch

In characterizing the politics of Musk and Murdoch Jessintime changed the text from "conservative" to "right-wing leaning". That description is somewhat loaded and doesn't necessarily apply here. Both people are anti-trump, and Musk is socially liberal. I reviewed online sources and "Right of center" seems fair to me, so I made that edit with rationale in comments. Jessintime reverted the text saying "they're right wing". To avoid churn, I just reverted all edits and am opening this talk page topic.

While I'm liberal and I'd guess at least 90% of wikipedia editors are, we shouldn't be using our opinions to characterize everyone to the right of us as "right-wing". Characterizing people requires thinking in terms of population averages. Now adays right wing is means being a trumpist or in favor of dictators like Putin, which these two are not to my knowledge.

We could just leave characterization of those two people out of it entirely if that's easiest. I agree Musk is not traditionally conservative. Thoughts on that approach? Other ideas for consensus? Efbrazil (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I struck the controversial text as nobody replied. Seems the easiest way to fix this. Efbrazil (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It's refreshing to see a Wikipedia editor admit the left wing / Democrat bias that is so blatant here. Conservatives have largely been run off by excessive bias from Wikipedia controlling editors and influencers. 167.248.146.171 (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Facts aren't biased 75.118.12.202 (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)