Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) was born in 1933 and was hospitalized in July 2020 due to a malaise. He died on September 18, making him the second female Supreme Court justice in the history of the United States.
露丝·巴德·金斯堡（Ruth Bader Ginsburg）出生于1933年，由于身体不适，于2020年7月住院。他于9月18日去世，使他成为美国历史上第二位最高法院女法官。
She was nominated by Clinton in 1993. She is a judge who often explodes "Golden Sentences" and is a national icon. She is liberal and firmly supports women's abortion rights. From 1970 to 1980, she participated in more than 300 sex discrimination cases, including 6 One went to the Supreme Court and won 5 of them, successfully expanding the scope of application of the 14 amendments to the Constitution, from prohibiting racial discrimination to prohibiting gender discrimination.
In 2005, Ginsberg frequently used the form of reading out "dissent books" in court to express his different opinions. She publicly announced a leftist opinion with the majority of the justices and was called a "warrior" by people including Trump.
But Ginsberg's personality is actually not that hot, relatively calm, and even a little taciturn and shy. She has been advocating for women's rights all her life, but she is by no means a radical feminist. She never cared whether others were entangled in calling her "madam" or "madam".
She fights for equal rights and not privileges for women, so she said:
In fact, in addition to fighting for the rights of women,
The Stephen Wiesenfeld case she participated in in 1975 is an example. After giving birth to a child, a pregnant woman died of amniotic fluid embolism, and her husband Stephen was raised alone. He wanted to apply for a single-parent family social security fund, but was told: "Mother's Security Fund", men cannot apply.
Ginsberg felt that this was gender discrimination, and through a lot of efforts, he helped this man get subsidies and also repealed this law.
So to be precise, Ginsberg is a gender affirmative. As she herself said: "Women and men can only be liberated at the same time." However, in her active years, women's rights and interests were mostly damaged, and she became a "feminist."
In the 1960s and 1970s, when the affirmative movement was raging, liberal judges such as Ginsberg were the mainstream, but by 1993 when Clinton nominated her as a judge, the American mood had already turned.
For the next two decades, the conservatives of the Supreme Court have always been in the majority, and she therefore appeared alternative and lonely.
In the Trump era, the conservative atmosphere in the United States reached its peak, and she was even more incompatible with the trend of the times. Coupled with being too old, they are often questioned,
She despised Trump, broke the Supreme Law’s tradition of non-interference in politics, and directly scolded him
Her straightforward personality, coupled with avant-garde actions such as senior fitness and hosting same-sex marriages, has made her frequently listed on social media hot search lists. Before her death, she was already a popular idol, incarnation of emoticons and cartoon symbols, printed on mugs and T-shirts, and tattooed on young people.
As a result, she gained a strong Internet nickname:
Ginsberg was born in Brooklyn, a poor district in New York. His father was a fur dealer, the first generation of immigrants came from Odessa, Ukraine, and his mother was the second generation.
Neither of her parents had a college education, but she taught her to fight for her ideals and told her how important learning and education are.
When he was a child, Ginsberg, like a boy, jumped from roof to roof and never participated in girls' gossip.
At the age of 17, her mother died of cancer the day before the high school graduation ceremony. Ginsberg said that her mother taught her two "courses":
The former means don’t let unnecessary negative emotions occupy your mind; the latter means that it’s good to meet Prince Charming for a lifetime, but you must learn to live independently if you don’t.
She was admitted to Cornell University and met her future husband Martin Ginsberg. In 1954, the two got married.
Martin has greatly helped Ginsburg's career.
In the 1950s, there were very few women going to college, and Cornell considered a more open school, and the ratio of boys to girls was only 4:1.
Someone laughed and said: If you have a daughter, you'd better send it to Cornell to study. If she can't find a love partner there, there will be no hope afterwards.
There are many boys dating Ginsberg, but Martin is the first boy who likes her cute appearance and admires her knowledge.
Martin is outgoing, social, good at cooking, and full of humor. On the contrary, Xiaojin is quiet, shy, and rarely communicates with others.
In 1993, to help his wife compete for Supreme Court justice, Martin made a long list and worked tirelessly to visit one by one. As the "man behind a successful woman", he is very competent.
But in the first few years after graduation, Ginsberg was more difficult for the two couples.
At that time Martin went to serve as a soldier, during which Xiaojin took the children while studying. After her husband retired, the couple was admitted to Harvard Law School.
Overcoming gender discrimination and family burdens, Xiaojin was elected editor of Harvard Law Review (Obama served as editor-in-chief) by virtue of his excellent results. It is not easy to be this legal editor. 530-540 law school students will have the opportunity to rank in the top 25.
You know, it wasn't until the early 1950s that Harvard Law School had women enrolled in it. At that time, women accounted for only 2%. When Xiaojin enrolled, there were only 9 girls out of more than 500 classmates at the same level. Women are not allowed to enter the library to read materials, and even the dean of the law school did not consciously show machismo. At a party, she even asked the female classmates present:
During this period, Martin suffered from testicular cancer. While taking care of her husband and young daughter, Ginsberg transferred to Columbia University Law School for further studies.
In the new school, Xiaojin, who was overwhelmed by life, could continue to serve as a legal review editor. In 1959, he graduated with the first grade in the class.
But in the late 1950s, when she graduated to find a job, no law firm wanted to hire such an outstanding woman. Even if she moved out of the editor's resume of the Harvard Law Review, no one would accept it, just because she was a woman.
A Columbia University admired his professor, and in order to force the Federal Law Judge Edward Palmyrie to hire her, he had to say something harsh, "If you don’t give Ginsberg a chance, I will never recommend any Columbia University to you. graduate".
Later, I finally got a job and was fired because of pregnancy.
All sorts of strange encounters made Ginsberg set his ambition:
The Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States has so far only four women, namely O'Connor, Ginsberg, Sotomeyer and Kagan (the latter two are nominated by Obama).
But it was such a future justice who couldn't even find a job at the beginning of graduation.
After untold hardships, Ginsberg finally found a faculty position at Rutgers University in 1963 to engage in academic research. She opened a course called "Gender and Law". Because of his outstanding work, in 1969, he was awarded the tenure of the school.
Since then, she has begun to deal with female discrimination cases, hoping to promote changes in national laws through individual cases.
In the 1960s when Ginsburg first came out to work, American laws were full of clauses that discriminated against women.
For example, the husband is the owner of the family, and the male lead decides the home address. In 1973, most state laws even allowed employers to dismiss women on the grounds of pregnancy. Women need their husbands to sign for credit. There are also 12 state laws.
The 1960s and 1970s were the golden age of American liberals. In terms of the legal system, the high court where Earl Warren is the chief justice can also be regarded as a pioneer of freedom. But there is an exception in one area, that is, women's rights, and the Warren Court is not "free".
For example, the Florida legislation in 1961 stipulated that participation in the jury was only a male obligation, not female citizens. According to the Supreme Court justices, this is "caring for" women because "women are the center of family life."
But Ginsberg did not think so, and felt that this was discrimination against women and treated them differently.
In the "Reed case" in 1971, she wrote a wonderful defense for the same thing:
Male justices who discriminate against women are not aware of discrimination. On the contrary, they believe in "protecting women." This adds intangible difficulty to overturning this kind of law.
In fact, until he became a justice, Ginsberg often disagreed with some male colleagues who played "good men".
In the final analysis, what Ginsberg has to fight in his lifetime is to fight against unconscious sex discrimination, in addition to the legal provisions that maliciously discriminate against women.
The provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution stipulate that "no state can deny that everyone has the equal right to legal protection."
This amendment advocates equality for all, but in fact it mainly targets
Before serving as a justice, the only thing Ginsberg did was to constantly tell the nine male justices in the Supreme Court that this amendment not only applies to racial discrimination, but also to gender discrimination.
For a weak woman who can hardly find a job, how can we wake up the Supreme Court, which is in power, to attach importance to sex discrimination?
The method Ginsberg chose is to fight one lawsuit one by one, starting from the most typical cases, persevering, and pushing qualitative changes through quantitative changes, and slowly overturning the stubborn edifice of sexism. That is what Zeng Guofan said:
The cases she chose may not be major ones, but they are all sufficiently representative. The first case she handled to appeal to the High Court was the Sally Reid case in 1967.
Sally is a single mother living in Idaho, and her teenage son Skip is disabled. On March 29, 1967, Skip went to visit his father Sisle and shot himself.
Painful Sally, unable to understand why her son committed suicide. When Fusesier was rushing to apply for the insurance payment for her son, she began to have doubts.
Sally's application should be made by herself, not Sisle, as the administrator of her son's insurance. But the Idaho court rejected her application on the grounds that the state law has long stipulated that such disputes are "male priority, not female."
The case reached the Supreme Court. Ginsberg voluntarily asked to write a brief for the case.
She wrote in the abstract: "Women have complete citizenship rights, and are eligible for the rights to life and freedom guaranteed by law, as well as equal legal protection."
In the end, all judges of the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Idaho law violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
Since this case, the Supreme Court has finally admitted that gender discrimination is as unconstitutional as racial discrimination. This case completely reversed the Supreme Court’s arrogant attitude towards gender discrimination.
The Sally case was just the beginning. Since then, Ginsberg has dealt with a series of government regulations suspected of sex discrimination. For example, the Wiesenfeld case we mentioned earlier.
After accumulating enough cases of this kind, in the 1980s, Ginsberg had a bold idea, hoping to package up the sex discrimination cases he had handled before and pass the "Equal Rights Amendment." Unfortunately, this amendment was not passed like the amendment prohibiting racial discrimination.
However, despite the lack of this "final blow", her years of hard work have actually made legislators and the whole society realize that no sex discrimination law can be enacted anymore.
During this passionate years of struggle, her personal status has also advanced by leaps and bounds.
In 1972, she became the first woman to earn a tenured faculty at Columbia Law School. In the same year, she became the first director of the ACLU Women's Rights Project (Women's Rights Project).
In 1980, appointed by President Jimmy Carter, she became a judge of the District of Columbia Circuit Court for 13 years.
In 1970, the wind of freedom in the United States was gaining momentum. Two young feminist lawyers Widington and Coffey had a whim and prepared to challenge the anti-abortion regulations in Dallas, Texas.
They carefully identified a pregnant woman who wanted an abortion to be the accuser. The pregnant woman's name was Mai Kangwei. She was 21 years old at the time. She was unmarried and had an unexpected pregnancy. She was in a difficult situation and had no money to go to a state where abortion was legalized for surgery.
In March of this year, McCormick changed his name to Roy and sued Dallas City Attorney Wade, accusing the Texas anti-abortion law as unconstitutional. The case was tried for several years, and after many setbacks, it finally appealed to the Supreme Court.
今年三月，麦考密克更名为罗伊（Roy），并起诉达拉斯市检察官韦德（Dades City Attorney Wade），指控德州反堕胎法违宪。该案已审理了几年，在经历了许多挫折之后，终于向最高法院提出上诉。
On January 22, 1973, nine justices of the Supreme Court passed a ruling on the legalization of abortion by a vote of 7 to 2:
From the moment the verdict came into effect, conservatives have repeatedly called for the verdict to be overturned and a total ban on abortion. Whether to agree with the legalization of abortion has become one of the core issues in the dispute between the left and right camps, and it is also a sign of whether a person is free or conservative.
In recent years, with conservative religious forces gaining power, anti-abortion voices have become louder.
Especially after Trump came to power, the "Pro-life" anti-abortion camp became vigorous. Alabama and Louisiana successively passed laws prohibiting female abortion, and they did not exclude special cases such as rape and incest leading to pregnancy. Happening.
Since 2019, 15 states in the United States have proposed the Heartbeat Act, which stipulates that
The problem is that within 6 weeks of pregnancy, many women cannot be sure whether they are pregnant or not, and may miss the abortion period. But the conservatives don’t care about this. At present, six states, including Alabama, Georgia, Ohio, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Dakota, have passed strict anti-abortion laws.
Ginsberg unswervingly supports women's voluntary abortion rights.
However, as a prudent judge, she did not fully agree with the 1973 Supreme Court's decision in the "Roe v. Wade" case. In her view, it is true to agree with women's abortion, but too general and non-targeted judgments can easily lead to organized resistance from conservatives, which is not conducive to step-by-step protection of women's abortion rights.
It is this prudence that makes her opinions more professional and convincing.
When she was nominated as a Supreme Court judge in 1993, a reporter asked her how she viewed her right to female abortion. Her answer was clear and powerful:
In 2013, a private company opposed the mandatory application of the Affordable Health Insurance Act for violating the Religious Freedom Act and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The company believes that four of the 20 contraceptive insurances provided to female employees under the law are inconsistent with religious beliefs.
To this end, Ginsberg published a 35-page "dissent", firmly defending women's rights and opposing deprivation of women's right to abortion.
Her reasoning is as always, "This is to deprive women of equal rights. The right to abortion balances the autonomy of women throughout their lives. It balances her relationship with men, society and the country as an independent, self-reliant, and equal citizen."
From young to old, Ginsberg has always adhered to the bottom line of American liberals unwaveringly.
But with Ginsburg’s death, conservatives may have the upper hand, sensitive abortion rights issues are facing the risk of turning right, and women’s abortion rights may be banned.
The prohibition of women’s abortion rights is a trivial matter. The more serious consequence is that right-wing conservative forces will become more polarized and excited.
In this way, the three powers of the Supreme Court, the President and the Congress may all be biased towards the right.
The latest news is that Trump will nominate Amy Coney Barrett as a Supreme Court judge. Barrett is 48 years old and a strict conservative. On issues of immigration, health care, and gay rights, they are completely opposite to liberals. He is likely to vote to pass the anti-abortion bill.
In 2017, Trump nominated conservative Neil Gorsuch as the Supreme Court justice. In 2018, he nominated another conservative Brett Kavanaugh as the Supreme Court justice.
2017年，特朗普提名保守派尼尔·戈拉奇（Neil Gorsuch）为最高法院法官。 2018年，他提名另一位保守派布雷特·卡瓦诺（Brett Kavanaugh）作为最高法院大法官。
In particular, the appointment of Gorsuch broke the tradition of "appointing a justice requires at least 60 votes to pass" for the first time. At that time, Senator Republican leader McConnell triggered the "nuclear procedure", changed the rules of procedure, and passed the appointment with a simple majority.
For this kind of action that is not in line with political practice, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said: "Decades later, we will sadly look back on today and find that this day we have changed the history of the Senate and the Supreme Court." Until today. , The Democratic Party is still brooding over this matter.
对于这种与政治实践不符的行动，参议院民主党领导人查克·舒默说：“几十年后，我们将遗憾地回顾今天，发现今天我们改变了参议院和最高法院的历史。 ”直到今天。 ，民主党仍在思考此事。
It can be seen from this that every time Trump nominates a justice, it is mixed with fierce party struggles. It can also be seen that the US imperialism is torn apart at this time.
The death of Ginsburg will only further aggravate the struggle and tear between the two parties.
Of course, to come back, in history, it is also common for American justices to "turn their faces and deny others." A conservative president nominates a conservative judge, but within a few years, even as soon as he takes office, the judge may change his position and become a liberal.
For example, in 1953, President Eisenhower’s appointment of Earl Warren. Warren was considered a staunch conservative judge at the time, but he did not expect that Warren led the freedom wave in the 1960s and 1970s (except for women's rights). Afterwards, Eisenhower shouted deceived, thinking that the nomination of Warren was "the stupidest mistake he made in his life."
Justice Holmes, nominated by Theodore Roosevelt, was also a little bit "disobedient", so much so that the old Roosevelt complained: "Even if I take a banana to a judge, I am more spine than this kid!"
The "renegade" of judges is related to the high degree of independence of the U.S. High Court and also to the term of office of judges being much longer than that of the president. Once the judge is confirmed, he cannot be replaced at will. Of course, he does not need to be "too obedient." Time changes and changes are normal.
Furthermore, Barrett, nominated by Trump, may not be able to pass the Senate vote for confirmation. At present, the Republican Party has a 53:47 ratio in the Senate, but two Republican lawmakers have publicly expressed their opposition to naming a new judge before the general election. This adds uncertainty to the smooth passage of the nomination.
Therefore, whether Ginsburg's death, the United States High Court, and even the influence of the High Court, will truly right-wing the entire political system is still difficult to conclude.
In fact, what really needs to worry about is not the justice's left-right imbalance, but whether the imbalance can be quickly corrected.
The United States has always been a country that controls each other's blogs. The short-term imbalance has never been a big problem. In the 1960s and 1980s, the freedom trend surged forward, but correspondingly, conservative forces also secretly accumulated their strength. Take the abortion bill as an example. After experiencing rapid liberalization in the 1970s, the state capitals in the central and southern regions have seen a "retro" phenomenon in recent years to counteract the previous surge.
In October 2018, the Pew Research Center in the United States released a survey report that the factors that affect people's support for abortion are not gender or class status, but religion and political party.
59% of Republicans agree that abortion is prohibited, and 76% of Democrats agree that abortion is legal. Among the mainstream Protestants in the United States, 61% of white Protestant evangelicals are staunch anti-abortionists. In contrast, 67% of mainstream white Protestants believe that abortion is legal, and 74% of non-religious people agree that abortion is legal.
The United States is an extremely secular country, and the 1787 Constitutional Convention also clarified the tradition of "separation of church and state." But the paradox is that the United States is also a country with a very developed religious tradition.
Currently, 70.6% of American believers believe in Christianity, and Protestants account for 40% of the total population of the United States. The proportion of the population claiming to be religious in the United States is much higher than that of the same developed capitalist countries. Only 46% in Canada claim to be religious, 37% in France and 29% in Sweden, but more than 60% in the United States.
In the tradition of "separation of church and state," religious groups in the United States are a bit like pyramid schemes, competing with each other and offering "faith packages" to the public to attract more private funding.
This camp mainly grew up in the progressivism of 1900 and the civil rights movement of 1960. They support abortion, believe in science, are supporters of the Democratic Party, and belong to the left.
But as we mentioned earlier, the leftists' radical support for women's abortion rights, an extremely sensitive issue in religion, has greatly stimulated the resistance and grouping of conservative Christians.
In fact, it was the anti-patriarchal, anti-Vietnam, anti-system, and radical left wing that advocated sexual freedom in the civil rights movement in the 1960s that ignited the sense of crisis and enthusiasm for the ultra-conservative right.
The enthusiasm of the civil rights movement extinguished, and the conservative right began to rise. The first to recognize and use this force was the Republican president in 1980.
In the Bush era, the conservative right has become the most important supporting force of the Republican Party. The conservative Christian League once distributed 70 million "voter guides" across the country, publicly intervened in politics, and organized the congregation to support the equally conservative Bush.
Bush Jr. took office and responded positively. His administration became more and more rightward, and he used religious language unscrupulously in public speeches. For example, he referred to Iraq, Iran and North Korea as "axis of evil."
When Trump came to power, he was even more unscrupulous.
Conservatives are not scattered like the liberal left, they are extremely stable and united.
Facing this conservative religious force, how should the Democratic Party respond? The trouble is here. Currently, the Democratic Party has no good countermeasures.
In 2004, the concept of "religious left" appeared, but the left has always been disunited.
Conservative religions promote fear and division and gain "vertical users". Left-wing religions promote love and peace, and unity is not effective; conservative religions advocate following the teachings of the Bible, which is simple and rude, while left-wing religions persuade people to feel the diversity and complexity of modern society. The former is obvious It is more in line with the sense of security and belonging that modern people lack.
The good news for the Democratic Party is that in recent years, the number of non-believers has grown rapidly, but the problem has arisen again. Relatively conservatives have a high desire to vote, and non-believers are generally politically apathetic and unwilling to vote.
In this way, in the future, where the right-wing religious forces in the United States will take the United States, it is really not optimistic.
The death of Ginsberg has added a thick haze to the political climate that is not optimistic.
She agrees that the overthrow of women’s abortion rights by the right is a trivial matter. What she fears most is that the correction mechanism for political imbalance in the United States will seriously fail because of her departure. The entire power system will slip into an extremely conservative mire and cannot extricate itself.
Among the three powers in the United States, the role of the Supreme Court is a bit like a woodpecker. Based on the Constitution, it constantly picks up the mistakes of the President’s executive orders and laws made by Congress.
But if the highest yard is on the wrong side, it's like woodpeckers picky eaters, because if they don't eat some kind of insects, the whole tree may be eaten away.
If she retires during the presidency of Obama, she has a chance to maintain the balance of the Supreme Court. Because Obama and her are congenial, they are both affirmative, and he can nominate a successor to preserve the liberal legacy.
This seems to show from one side that Ginsberg had no intention of mixing party politics. Many domestic legal experts also believe that she is just a pure judge and has nothing to do with her.
But the problem is that when Justice Kim handled the Ledbetter case in his later years, because he did not agree with the Supreme Court’s 5:4 voting decision, he voluntarily sought Congress to intervene to overturn the decision of her Supreme Court colleagues. In the end, the Democratic-controlled Congress at the time supported her idea, and then President Obama also signed the new law passed by Congress.
In other words, she is very good at using the U.S. power check and balance mechanism. She also knows that law and politics cannot be completely separated.
Moreover, when answering the New Yorker author Jeffrey Toobin's question about retirement, she made it clear that the retirement of each high court judge is an important consideration for the party of the president.
The tragedy is that such a person who knows the pros and cons has died in the presidency of the most disgusting president. Sometimes I think about it, this may be the fate of a country. After all, no one can accurately predict when a person will die.
For China, the right-wing of the United States is by no means a good thing. In the 1950s, the result of America's extreme rightism was a big fight with China, and the two countries broke off for more than 20 years. If the United States turns to the right again today, the result may be equally tragic.
Back then, Japan was extremely right-handed and eccentric, and the main unlucky country was its neighbor-China. If the U.S. imperialism also moves toward extreme rightism this year, its main bearer will probably be its main competitor-China.
In fact, looking at Ginsberg's life, I envy her life in my heart. Apart from busy work, her family life is very healthy and happy. She raised two children, a bunch of grandchildren, and her husband's marriage lasted 56 years until her husband died of cancer in 2010.
In June 2010, when the doctor told her husband Martin that they were helpless with his condition. This model husband wrote his wife the last short message of his life, including emotional sentences:
"My dearest Ruth, you are the only person I love in my life. Almost since the day when we first met at Cornell 56 years ago, I have always admired and loved you. I can see How lucky I am to walk you all the way to the highest peak in the legal world!"
A person, for a lifetime, having such a love and running such a happy family is probably happier than any career success. This kind of life, such a stable family, can only emerge in a country that continues to prosper and stabilize.
In fact, most ordinary Chinese people yearn for this kind of life. Wives and children are hot on the bed. They have no big ambitions. They are neither greedy nor snatching. It is okay to ask for a family’s health and peace, even if it’s plain. The so-called yearning for a better life is nothing more than that.
In the past 40 years, the stable development of the country has provided countless ordinary Chinese with the conditions to create a better life. But to be honest, 40 years is really not enough, and a happy life is just a beginning.
But for the past year or two, the domestic stability has remained stable, but the international environment has become turbulent. Suddenly, globalization is going backwards, trade barriers are increasing, and all kinds of frictions continue. The country that sees us as a competitor seems to be a sign of fever, and a neighboring country wants to show off its cannons and spears.
The tree wants to be quiet but the wind keeps on, it's not the tree's fault. Jackals come with shotguns, friends come with good wine, what we are defending is equal treatment between countries, and what we are guarding is only the ordinary days of wives and children.
If you are not crazy, I will not be devil, it's that simple.