4.01

5

Nov 29, 2019

Update I've finished the book. I'm immediately rereading it. Actually I read it, now I'm listening to it. It's so good, I want to make sure I haven't missed anything. The US have a lot to be thankful for in having RBG on the Supreme Court.
_______________

This book is so good that I'm neglecting my work to do it. Haven't had lunch, just keeping going on tea.
It's a 10 star! RBG is a star!

This is more like it! I gave up Decades Behind Bars: A 20-Year Conversation with Men in America's Prisons, Update I've finished the book. I'm immediately rereading it. Actually I read it, now I'm listening to it. It's so good, I want to make sure I haven't missed anything. The US have a lot to be thankful for in having RBG on the Supreme Court.
_______________

This book is so good that I'm neglecting my work to do it. Haven't had lunch, just keeping going on tea.
It's a 10 star! RBG is a star!

This is more like it! I gave up Decades Behind Bars: A 20-Year Conversation with Men in America's Prisons, when I saw this. I much prefer non-fiction, but it has to have depth and impart knowledge and make me think. This one does, Decades lacked all of that. ...more

3

Sep 01, 2015

I wish I could give this more stars. I love the concept obviously, there’s a lot of fun gossip, and Hirshman writes about Supreme Court cases in an accessible way. But there were some big and small issues that detracted from my overall enjoyment of the book.

Minor complaints, but the amount of dangling everything is distracting, and the easy conversational style veers into inappropriate cuteness. Sorry not sorry to be a crank, but Justice Powell was not O’Connor’s “new BFF” on the Court, and I wish I could give this more stars. I love the concept obviously, there’s a lot of fun gossip, and Hirshman writes about Supreme Court cases in an accessible way. But there were some big and small issues that detracted from my overall enjoyment of the book.

Minor complaints, but the amount of dangling everything is distracting, and the easy conversational style veers into inappropriate cuteness. Sorry not sorry to be a crank, but Justice Powell was not O’Connor’s “new BFF” on the Court, and Ginsburg’s and O’Connor’s gender discrimination victories are not a string of “Girlz Rule” decisions. Perhaps this is meant to be tongue in cheek, but it falls flat and does a disservice to the subject matter and the presumably female millennial audience. Justice Ginsburg is a pop culture icon and Notorious RBG is my favorite thing about the internet, but RBG is a legend precisely because of Hirshman’s assessment that Ginsburg is a lawyer’s lawyer. Ginsburg acknowledges that the Supreme Court is a political instrument, but you will never catch her ignoring the Court’s own precedent (unless striking it down) or submitting an opinion that tortures the law to achieve an end. As a lawyer, the cases she brought before the Court were unsexy procedural vehicles which she used strategically to chip away at the pattern of discrimination embedded in the law. Swag aside, the meat and potatoes of the Notorious RBG tumblr are the quotes from Ginsburg’s opinions, and these aren’t dumbed down. This book doesn’t need to be dumbed down either.

The premise of the book also doesn’t play out ideally because Ginsburg dominates the narrative on equal rights. I get the argument that Justice O’Connor was the “perfect first.” A socially astute, hardworking, prolific conservative who played by the rules, didn’t complain and was easy on the eyes, it makes sense that O’Connor was the non-threatening candidate the men of the era were ready for. And O’Connor’s presence on the Court clearly meant a lot to Ginsburg. But in a book about women changing the world for women, it’s almost unfair to line up O’Connor’s and Ginsburg’s paths to the Court and records once they got there. And it’s not hard to feel disappointed in O’Connor, who deserves more than that. I’d also love to have read more about the impact of these two firsts on Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.

Also, be prepared to be mad at everyone, and by everyone I mean the men whose personal biases have shaped our country’s laws (I’m looking at you, Learned Hand, Posner, and almost every male Justice since the dawn of time). Don’t even get me started on NIMBY liberal Justice Brennan, champion of equal rights except when it came to hiring female clerks in his own chambers (he finally hired a woman only after Columbia Law threatened never to send any clerks his way ever again). Even Justice Stevens doesn’t come off smelling like a rose, but don’t worry, RBG took care of it.

Finally, LOL “Dissenting Monday,” the day on which Ginsburg read a record three dissents from the bench, which is something Justices do only when they’re exceptionally pissed off.
...more

3

Aug 30, 2015

Let me start by saying that I really enjoyed this book, regardless of what my lukewarm rating might indicate. It was a fascinating and detailed look at two of the most fascinating and influential women in legal history, and I found myself captivated by both the sweeping historical narrative and the charming anecdotes and facts that Hirshman included, providing greater detail on both the Court itself and its first women. I appreciated Hirshman's ability to simplify the legal details in order to Let me start by saying that I really enjoyed this book, regardless of what my lukewarm rating might indicate. It was a fascinating and detailed look at two of the most fascinating and influential women in legal history, and I found myself captivated by both the sweeping historical narrative and the charming anecdotes and facts that Hirshman included, providing greater detail on both the Court itself and its first women. I appreciated Hirshman's ability to simplify the legal details in order to make the book accessible to laypeople, and I was deeply impressed by the sheer volume of information and research which was included within a relatively short tome (301 pages, in my edition).

The above said, I had some issues with Sisters in Law which ultimately kept me from giving it the 4 or even 5 star review it might otherwise have received. Although I respect Hirshman's right to include and champion whatever personal opinions and political views she would like to through her writing, I do feel that this book went a bit too far in its obvious bias against Justice O'Connor, especially for a book written under the guise of celebrating O'Connor and her achievements. More disturbingly, however, was Hirshman's tendency to allow her own bias to gloss over legal details, to the point where she came very near to mischaracterizing case law and the Court's jurisprudence (or at least ignoring potential opposing arguments, a cardinal sin of any legal analysis). The simplification of complex legal concepts mentioned above, while largely well-done, occasionally combined with Hirshman's obvious bias to create an analysis which was entirely one-sided, overly simplified, and borderline patronizing, not to mention almost unjustly brief. Towards the end of the book especially, when Hirshman disliked or disagreed with the outcome of a case, she simply devoted a few sentences to decrying the Court without even acknowledgedly the reasoning behind the various decisions.

Ultimately, although I did truly enjoy this book, it is the clear lack of objectivity which led to my final rating. Given the choice on Goodreads, I would probably have gone with a slightly more generous 3.5 stars, but as it is, Sisters in Law gets 3 stars for being an admirable, if slightly partisan, piece of biographical nonfiction. ...more

5

May 19, 2019

This nonfiction reading group pick is subtitled How Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Went To The Supreme Court And Changed The World. It was a hard book to read for me because all I know about law and courts I learned from watching Perry Mason as a kid and reading thrillers. While the story of the first two women to serve as Justices of the Supreme Court is exciting stuff, I had some trouble following all the cases.

However, some years ago I tried to read The Nine by Jeffrey Toobin This nonfiction reading group pick is subtitled How Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Went To The Supreme Court And Changed The World. It was a hard book to read for me because all I know about law and courts I learned from watching Perry Mason as a kid and reading thrillers. While the story of the first two women to serve as Justices of the Supreme Court is exciting stuff, I had some trouble following all the cases.

However, some years ago I tried to read The Nine by Jeffrey Toobin and was defeated. Linda Hirshman managed to crack the code for me and I appreciate that a great deal. Now I understand how that court works.

I knew more about RBG, having seen both the 2018 documentary RBG as well as the 2018 movie On The Basis Of Sex. I knew virtually nothing about Sandra Day O'Connor except that she was the first (FWOTSC) and served as a swing vote between the conservative and liberal justices. This book goes into great detail about each woman and the friendship between them. They were quite different in some ways.

What I enjoyed most was learning about the clear intention of RBG to change conditions for women in a deliberate sequence of cases designed to change precedents. Compared to many other things in life, her method is slow. It takes years and decades. Her belief is that if you want to change society you must change the laws. She has done that!

I am very glad I read this book. While the fight for equality is a long slog and while the ingrained, unexamined prejudices about women held by men makes me spitting angry, I could see how her method has worked. I felt some hope. Also we now have three women on the court: RBG, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Another curious fact is that all nine justices are either Catholic or Jewish.

Now all of her work is at risk. With the conservatives in the majority on the court, much of what she has done in setting precedents at least makes it more difficult for those conservatives to send us backward. I have begun keeping track of the cases heard through a great website, https://constitutioncenter.org/blog.

Our reading group discussion was wonderful. We are all liberals, several work in the legal world and we are all women, of course! ...more

5

Oct 11, 2018

I read this the week of the Kavanaugh hearings and it was the perfect antidote.

The book is about Ginsberg and O'Connor--their lives, work, and their fight for women. It's a great story that is well told. She even talks about how Ginsberg became a meme. I think she goes easy on them in the places they failed. O'Connor was terrible on race. She seemed reasonable in contrast to others, but she was still bad. Ginsberg also got a lot wrong when it came to inequality. For example, she joined the I read this the week of the Kavanaugh hearings and it was the perfect antidote.

The book is about Ginsberg and O'Connor--their lives, work, and their fight for women. It's a great story that is well told. She even talks about how Ginsberg became a meme. I think she goes easy on them in the places they failed. O'Connor was terrible on race. She seemed reasonable in contrast to others, but she was still bad. Ginsberg also got a lot wrong when it came to inequality. For example, she joined the majority in the Watters case against the State of Michigan's attempts to regulate subprime lending. It was a terrible decision with terrible consequences. I know you can't cover every case and the focus is on womens rights. The book convinced me that Ginsberg was right about Roe being rightly decided, but on the wrong grounds. Privacy is an awfully precarious legal foundation for abortion. Guess we'll see if it will hold up. ...more

3

Nov 21, 2015

Meh. I love reading about the Supreme Court and in some ways this was as fun as any other book on the subject, but it also didn't really reveal all that much about the relationship between O'Connor and Ginsburg. It was a bit like two separate biographies joined together. If you've already read Joan Biskupic's biography of O'Connor then you definitely don't need this one to learn about SDOC. The stuff on Ginsburg is really interesting, but joining them together just felt sort of forced.

While the Meh. I love reading about the Supreme Court and in some ways this was as fun as any other book on the subject, but it also didn't really reveal all that much about the relationship between O'Connor and Ginsburg. It was a bit like two separate biographies joined together. If you've already read Joan Biskupic's biography of O'Connor then you definitely don't need this one to learn about SDOC. The stuff on Ginsburg is really interesting, but joining them together just felt sort of forced.

While the subtitle for my edition is "How Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Went to the Supreme Court and Changed the World," that seems sort of disingenuous as Ginsburg actually did some of her best work in changing the world BEFORE she got to the SC. The subtitle appearing on Goodreads is "SDOC, RBG and the Friendship That Changed Everything," but that's even more outlandish as the book isn't really about a friendship and it's unclear whether the friendship itself actually had anything to do with changing anything at all. This is one book where the concept was better than the actual delivery. ...more

5

Sep 02, 2015

This is a new book out that was a perfect fit for my reading project of the Supreme Court. The author Linda Hirshman received her law degree and Ph.D. from University of Illinois at Chicago. She practiced law and appeared before the Supreme Court then became a law professor at Brandeis University. In 2002 she retired and now has become a well known author.

I have read biographies about both O’Connor and Ginsburg, but this book excels in portraying the enormous obstacles both women encountered by This is a new book out that was a perfect fit for my reading project of the Supreme Court. The author Linda Hirshman received her law degree and Ph.D. from University of Illinois at Chicago. She practiced law and appeared before the Supreme Court then became a law professor at Brandeis University. In 2002 she retired and now has become a well known author.

I have read biographies about both O’Connor and Ginsburg, but this book excels in portraying the enormous obstacles both women encountered by women attempting to enter the legal field. O’Connor and Ginsburg both attended top-tier law schools and graduated at the top of their respective classes. Nonetheless, both struggled to obtain their first professional jobs.

They were very different people, O’Connor the politician and Ginsburg the tactician and legal scholar, but they respected each other and frequently worked together on cases before the Court.
Hirshman examines not just their role in reframing the culture of the Supreme Court and the tenor of some aspects of the law, but also their work on specific issues such as affirmative action and sex discrimination. The summary at the end was very depressing to me. To listen to a step by step list of the rights women have fought for being taken away, along with the rights regarding racial discrimination and voting. I guess I have lived long enough to go full circle and ended up where I started. It makes me depressed and angry. I have talked with some young women and they have no idea what we went through, so they now have the opportunity to enter most any professions they wish. They can now rent a car and have a credit card in their name; I could not when I was their age, only men had that right. Sexual and racial discrimination including harassment are on the increase lately as is anti-Semitism. I sure hope that people wake up and stop the eroding of the hard fought gains toward equality, but it sure looks discouraging. It may come about that these young women I talked with will need to fight for their rights all over again.

The book is superbly written and researched and is packed with information in an easy to read fashion. The book is written for both the layman and the scholar to enjoy. I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. Andrea Gallo did a good job narrating the book.
...more

5

Jul 31, 2015

Much of what goes on behind closed doors at the U.S. Supreme Court is shrouded in mystery and the subject of much speculation with only the most informed outsiders perspective to offer an informed explanation. Some of this is due to the fiercely guarded access to the nature of conducting the Court's business as well as court personnel and the Justices working papers, some of which are held in secrecy until long after the Justice has passed. Where a current Justice is involved there is even less Much of what goes on behind closed doors at the U.S. Supreme Court is shrouded in mystery and the subject of much speculation with only the most informed outsiders perspective to offer an informed explanation. Some of this is due to the fiercely guarded access to the nature of conducting the Court's business as well as court personnel and the Justices working papers, some of which are held in secrecy until long after the Justice has passed. Where a current Justice is involved there is even less available material. Which makes it all the more impressive that Linda Hirshman was able to marshal considerable resources during the course of writing her book. She knew what to look for, where to find it, and used that research in writing a thorough and thoughtful analysis assembled into an artful and intimate story. Bravo!

The book outlines the early life and careers of Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg and follows each of their paths to The Supreme Court. They had very different early careers - Justice O'Connor as a state legislator and Justice Ginsburg as an ACLU litigator - with each of them spending time in lower courts before their appointments to the high court. The author examines the pivotal moments in their early professional and personal lives, how their work, detractors, and supporters influenced their course, and how they came to develop the framework which serves as the foundation for their judicial decision making. Justice O'Connor is of course the first woman to reach the Supreme Court bench and she was the Lone Ranger for awhile before Justice Ginsburg joined her. Despite their differences in perspective and judicial orientation, and the fact they had little interaction with each other before they were joined on the court, they respected each other immensely and forged a special and unique relationship. The author did a superb job of describing the unique bond these two women formed and how it unfolded in their time on the court. None of this is described in a vacuum so there is plenty of discussion about their interaction with the other Justices particularly during court conferences. In the many cases where women's rights were at issue, the only thing missing from the book is a picture of what must have been the slack jawed look of astonishment directed at some of their brethren during some of their discussions. It is no stretch of the imagination to understand why Justice O'Connor described her early days on the court as "lonely" before the arrival of Justice Ginsburg, and the impetus behind some of Justice Ginsburgs blistering dissents. These trailblazers are no shrinking violets no matter how diplomatic, courtly, and academic they may appear.

This book stands in a class by itself as to the perspective it offers of the court as seen through the lens of the first two women to arrive at the Supreme Court. Case analysis can be pretty dry but used as a vehicle for demonstrating the development of these women's respective judicial careers kept the story line engaging. The bond these women formed shines through amid the unique place in history each of them now enjoys. This book will appeal to anyone interested in the The Supreme Court, the development of women's rights under the law, and the journey of these two courageous trailblazers. Rich and complex, this was a wonderful book.

I received an uncorrected advance copy of this book through Goodreads in a giveaway sponsored by Harper and in exchange I willingly agreed to read and review the book. Thanks for selecting me. ...more

5

May 21, 2015

This is a stunning and insightful review of the careers of Sandra Day O'Connor, the first women on SCOTUS, and the second woman,Ruth Bader Ginsburg. On the surface, the two are as different as chalk and cheese, Sandra a stalwart Westerner with little interest in real feminism other than the fact that she quietly fought her way up the ladder from a traditional country club wife and mother to a member of the court. However, and while she was recognized as the reliable swing vote in many cases, her This is a stunning and insightful review of the careers of Sandra Day O'Connor, the first women on SCOTUS, and the second woman,Ruth Bader Ginsburg. On the surface, the two are as different as chalk and cheese, Sandra a stalwart Westerner with little interest in real feminism other than the fact that she quietly fought her way up the ladder from a traditional country club wife and mother to a member of the court. However, and while she was recognized as the reliable swing vote in many cases, her legacy is more about being in the right place at the right time and not ticking off her fellow justices. Ginsburg, on the other h a n d, has built her career on rocking the boat and, in so doing, has become a mythic figure to young people and especially young feminists. The tiny, fragile looking justice, an upper East Side liberal to her core, speaks for the underdog, unfailingly and has,in this Conservative court, become the modern Brandeis, the reliable voice of dissent. I had not realized, until now, thAt Bush v. Gore, perhaps the court's most controversial decision, essentially turned on the fact that O'Connor wanted to leave the bench and could not do it if Gore, the Democrat, was elected. There is nothing dry or pedantic about this book. It is, in fact, a page turner and a necessary read for any woman who cares about the fact that the Conservative men still see women as less than men, with a G-d given duty only to home and children. I have never been prouder of a "sister" than of the Notorious RBG after reading about her steadiness to the rights of all Americans. This should be required reading for every young person born after the Feminist movement to show them how hard people fought and must fight lest we lose the gains that have been made. Highly recommended ...more

4

Feb 18, 2016

Nearly five stars. This is a book with an agenda. This is not merely a biography of these two Supreme Court Justices, though it does cover quite a bit of biographical information. This is a book about feminism and the women's legal civil rights movement. The decisions and careers are described through the lens of the effect on women and women's rights. The author is unapologetic about her view that women should be treated as full, dignified, equal participants in setting their own destinies. Nearly five stars. This is a book with an agenda. This is not merely a biography of these two Supreme Court Justices, though it does cover quite a bit of biographical information. This is a book about feminism and the women's legal civil rights movement. The decisions and careers are described through the lens of the effect on women and women's rights. The author is unapologetic about her view that women should be treated as full, dignified, equal participants in setting their own destinies. That women should have control over their own reproductive decisions as a facet of that equality. That women should be treated as equals under the law, protected from harassment and discrimination in the workplace. These positions are the starting point here. They aren't open to debate in this book - Hirshman isn't here to discuss whether it wouldn't be better for society if women were protected in their roles as mothers. She's openly critical of decisions that veer from this path. Thus, this is a book that praises Ginsberg more than O'Connor as the bolder advocate of women's rights.

There's plenty of gossipy stories here - information from former clerks and from the private papers of various Justices. Sometimes the book veers into chattiness instead of a more academic examination of a body of law. Sometimes (but not often) the author oversimplifies the issues being decided in the cases described. But these are minor quibbles in what is really an impressive and generally academic book.

But mostly, there's a really interesting and compelling theme of how the life experiences of these women impacted their opinions. And how their opinions (and changes thereto) can be tracked through their decisions. And how different approaches to the politics of decisions complemented one another.

The narrator for the audiobook does a good job with the text, though not a particularly memorable one.

Highly recommended, especially to lawyers, and especially to women lawyers. ...more

5

Jan 31, 2017

I learned a lot in this book about Justices O'Connor and Ginsburg, their lives before serving on the Court, and their bodies of work in general. Both of these women graduated from law school at the top of their classes in the 1950s, and neither one could find work in a law firm. No one would hire a woman at the time, and no judges would hire a woman clerk. O'Connor worked for free for a time, and Ginsburg ended up in academia at first. Incredible how much has changed in 50 years and how much of I learned a lot in this book about Justices O'Connor and Ginsburg, their lives before serving on the Court, and their bodies of work in general. Both of these women graduated from law school at the top of their classes in the 1950s, and neither one could find work in a law firm. No one would hire a woman at the time, and no judges would hire a woman clerk. O'Connor worked for free for a time, and Ginsburg ended up in academia at first. Incredible how much has changed in 50 years and how much of that change we owe to these 2 women. I can relate to Justice O'Connor in her more conservative politics and background and to why she did some of the things she did as a legislator and judge. I also have great respect and admiration for Justice Ginsburg and am really just now realizing how much I personally have benefited from her work in advancing women's rights. Coming from a conservative background, I have been told my whole life that Justice Ginsburg is practically the devil, but I wonder where women would be today had she not worked to pioneer equal rights for women. Her work to expand the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment to include sex discrimination and also her groundwork that led to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act have both affected me personally, and I have personally benefited from this work. I don't think any woman today can say she does not benefit from this work. I also appreciated learning about the relationship between these 2 very different women, their respect for each other, and how they often worked together on the Court. This author describes their work for women's rights as O'Connor playing defense while Ginsburg played offense. A pretty good way to describe it. I will be looking for some more books on these 2 extraordinary and fascinating women. ...more

2

Feb 28, 2019

DNF with about a third of the book left. I love the concept and the information is interesting but I felt like the book was poorly executed. It ended up being a snooze feast, which was disappointing.

2

Mar 14, 2017

This is not what it's advertised. It's a book about legal cases heard by the Supreme Court written by a lawyer in lawyer-ese. You'll learn that the author has Ginsberg on a pedestal and chagrined that the first woman on the Supreme Court was a Republican.
The points of law regarding women's fight for equality are interesting. It's a shame they are not taught in high school civics class.

The author could have cut out parts one and two without sacrificing the content of the book. It was tedious This is not what it's advertised. It's a book about legal cases heard by the Supreme Court written by a lawyer in lawyer-ese. You'll learn that the author has Ginsberg on a pedestal and chagrined that the first woman on the Supreme Court was a Republican.
The points of law regarding women's fight for equality are interesting. It's a shame they are not taught in high school civics class.

The author could have cut out parts one and two without sacrificing the content of the book. It was tedious keeping track of one court case after another . There's little or nothing about any personal relationship between Ginsberg and O'Conner, and
Kagan and Sotomayer are just glossed over as an aside.

One of these days there will be a book by women about women that is not broken down by party lines. We're all in this together - dump the partisan politics. ...more

4

Jun 04, 2015

Excellent book about the first two female Supreme Court Justices. Both of their backgrounds include being unable to find a job after law school because they were women. Delves a lot into the reasons they make the decisions they did, which often has to do with personal history.

5

May 31, 2016

I seldom do a real review of the books I read. Most of them are strictly for my own entertainment and really don't have much redeeming social value. This book, however, is different.

I have probably spent more time in a court room than most trial lawyers because of directing the CASA program (Court Appointed Special Advocates) for abused and neglected children and then as the Family Court Administrator, both for 8 counties in southern Idaho. That and having been married to a judge and often I seldom do a real review of the books I read. Most of them are strictly for my own entertainment and really don't have much redeeming social value. This book, however, is different.

I have probably spent more time in a court room than most trial lawyers because of directing the CASA program (Court Appointed Special Advocates) for abused and neglected children and then as the Family Court Administrator, both for 8 counties in southern Idaho. That and having been married to a judge and often sitting in on the cases before him just as a support to him and because they were interesting. I even attended some Idaho Supreme Court arguments when Bill was filling in for one of the Justices. Once, during a conference in Washington D.C. at which one of our Idaho contingent was Charles Donaldson, at that time Chief Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court, he managed to finagle a private guided tour of the Supreme Court building for us, during which I actually got to sit in Sandra Day O'Connor's (at that time, the only woman on the Court) chair on the bench. So I found this double biography of Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to be fascinating.

I was troubled during the early part of the book by the favoritism shown to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's role. She and her earlier legal career were discussed in much more detail and much more favorably that O'Connor's was. This may have been a political bias on the part of the author, herself a lawyer and professor of women's studies at Brandeis, certainly one I could agree with, but by the end of the book, that was less of an issue for me.

My big takeaway from this book was wondering, had Ginsburg been the first woman on the Court (FWOSC) if there would ever have been an O'Connor not to mention a Sotomayor or a Kagan. I think that had the FWOSC, whom ever that might have been, come in with a tough stance on feminist issues, it might well have closed the doors to future women appointees. I'm not suggesting that Ginsburg would have done that, only giving O'Connor credit for recognizing that she needed to approach things in a more cooperative and less aggressive way than we might have wanted her to do at the time.

Most important for me was the carefully thought out and implemented campaign that was waged by both of these women to improve the equality of women in all areas of our society. And for that, I am eternally grateful! ...more

2

Dec 26, 2018

Finished: 26.12.2018
Genre: non-fiction
Rating: C
#AudioBook
Conclusion:
I admire both Supreme Justices Sandra Day O'Connor
and Ruth Bader Ginsberg so much.
I wanted to love this book....unfortunately it did not
capture my heart.
Linda Hirshman did not use factual language to
create any emotional feeling for these great women
It was all business as usual.
#Disappointed

4

Jan 29, 2019

I thought that this book did a great job representing both women. While I knew most of the facts about RBG, it was fascinating to learn more about Sandra Day O'Connor, even if my political thoughts do not fully align with the decisions she made. It is clear that Hirshman thoroughly researched both women; she was able to depict each woman fairly and, in my opinion, accurately.

4

Jul 03, 2016

Ginsburg had never heard of O'Connor when she was appointed to the court but O'Connor was much aware of the opinions of Ginsburg and the body of opinions she had contributed to the law. Ginsburg was, however, pleased that O'Connor would join the court. The two women, however, forged an important relationship that changed the lives of women in this country.

The author provides an annotation of the cases on which they worked, the assignment of cases and opinions to them, their agreement and Ginsburg had never heard of O'Connor when she was appointed to the court but O'Connor was much aware of the opinions of Ginsburg and the body of opinions she had contributed to the law. Ginsburg was, however, pleased that O'Connor would join the court. The two women, however, forged an important relationship that changed the lives of women in this country.

The author provides an annotation of the cases on which they worked, the assignment of cases and opinions to them, their agreement and disagreement in the law, and the manner in which they influenced the atmosphere of the court.

I thought the author was fair in her treatment of the two women except in the matter of the interference in the Florida Bush/Gore election contest. While I thought the court was wrong in taking the case and their decision was insupportable, expecting O'Connor to break with her party and, given her admiration for President G.H.W. Bush, to do anything but support Bush was not within her capability. She would have felt it was her duty to decide for G.W. Bush and to do what she considered right for the country. The fact that she had a personal interest in the election of Bush made it look suspect -- as it may have been -- but even she could not have able to factor that out.

The author primary thread is the alliance between the two women. She depicts O'Connor as having a greater impact on the interactional component of the court and Ginsburg on it's legal scholarship. The two, working together from differing legal camps, made a strong impact. ...more

4

May 21, 2015

This is an awesome retrospective on the first 2 female Supreme Court justices. I docked it one star only because it's very repetitive. Some readers may like that but you only have to tell me once....I get it.

I am a big RBG fan and this treatment confirmed my thoughts about her.....she is one tough but compassionate boss lady. I learned that she would like to retire but won't because Obama couldn't find another "her" that could get confirmed....the Republicans would filibuster and so she hangs on This is an awesome retrospective on the first 2 female Supreme Court justices. I docked it one star only because it's very repetitive. Some readers may like that but you only have to tell me once....I get it.

I am a big RBG fan and this treatment confirmed my thoughts about her.....she is one tough but compassionate boss lady. I learned that she would like to retire but won't because Obama couldn't find another "her" that could get confirmed....the Republicans would filibuster and so she hangs on through grief and health problems....yep, one tough, stubborn heroine.

On the other hand, this book actually lowered my opinion of Sandra Day O'Connor....yes, she was first, yes, she supported women's rights for the most part but she was way too acquiescent in my opinion. She was practically one of the boys. The best thing she did was pave the way for Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan.

If you have any interest whatsoever in feminism or politics, I highly recommend this. ...more

5

Dec 28, 2015

Although it was a slow read, I thoroughly enjoyed this book and learned a great deal. I cheered as so much progress happened for equal rights, and then wanted to cry as I remembered how many rights have been destroyed with the current supreme court.

4

Feb 05, 2016

How appropriate that after I finished listening to this audio-book during my commute this morning, I found out that it is RBG's birthday. I am excited to honor her, O'Connor, and every other person who has contributed to gender equality by voting in MO's presidential primary today.

3

Dec 30, 2018

For a snapshot of ambivalence on the subject of gender equality, look at Nebraska. It's motto, “Equality before the law,” was adopted shortly after the Civil War and harmonized with the 14th and 15th Constitutional amendments. Should that motto include gender equality? Nebraska initially ratified the Equal Rights Amendment; the following year it reversed that decision. Ruth Bader Ginsburg harbored no such ambivalence. Long before she gained celebrity status as a justice on the U.S. Supreme For a snapshot of ambivalence on the subject of gender equality, look at Nebraska. It's motto, “Equality before the law,” was adopted shortly after the Civil War and harmonized with the 14th and 15th Constitutional amendments. Should that motto include gender equality? Nebraska initially ratified the Equal Rights Amendment; the following year it reversed that decision. Ruth Bader Ginsburg harbored no such ambivalence. Long before she gained celebrity status as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, she was working toward upending paternalistic legal assumptions about women.

The state of Idaho favored men over women as court appointed executors of estates. Men brought home the bacon; women cooked it. That was the natural order endorsed by the law. Many states “protected” women from jury service: legal cases were complicated, and their details were often sordid and disturbing. Women were not banned outright from the jury pool. They simply had to register with the state to be included in the jury pool process.

In Reed v. Reed (1971) the Supreme Court came to a unanimous decision striking down the Idaho law's gender-based preference, largely due to a brief co-written by Ginsburg. In Frontieri v. Richardson (1973), the Court was forced to admit that husbands could be dependents. Therefore, the Dept. of Defense could not deny benefits to husbands whose spouses were in the military. Taylor v. Louisiana (1975) was a landmark decision. A lower court conviction was overturned because Louisiana state law effectively excluded women from the jury pool. Ginsburg's trojan horse strategy highlighted the absurdity of gender discrimination by advocating for male plaintiffs.

In 1975 the social security administration denied benefits to widower Stephen Wiesenfeld, sole provider for his newborn son Jason. If a widow could collect survivor benefits, there was no logical reason for denying the benefit to the widower who found himself in the same situation. Still, the Court squirmed. By framing the law as a benefit for family support, the Court ruled in favor of Wiesenfeld. “Ginsburg never got the Supreme Court to say that sex was like race [i.e. protected under the 14th amendment]. However, except for the hardest cases, war and sex, never again would the Supreme Court say that an American law could treat women differently from men simply because they were women. The cultural issues — male caregivers as 'indolent,' babies as the most important job — would remain like little land mines ready to explode once Ginsburg's job of establishing formal legal equality was done. But culture was not Ginsburg's task: she would change the law. Without the law telling people that women are different and destined for domestic life, the culture had the chance to change women's roles.” (p.102)

Why, then, pair Ginsburg's dynamic vision of the law with Sandra Day O'Connor's cautious ambivalence as a Supreme Court justice? Why link these two very different women with an eponymous bad pun? O'Connor is important because she was the first woman elevated to the Supreme Court. It would be a constant and visible reminder to her colleagues and to the nation that old norms were changing. The compelling story is her personality. She graduated from Stanford Law School in 1952, the same year as future Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Rehnquist went on to clerk for Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson. Day O'Connor's sole offer was as a legal secretary. She embodied the virtues of charm and assertiveness that might once have been characterized as “spunk.” Interrupting one of Antonin Scalia's rants against affirmative action, she asked him: “Why, Nino, how do you think I got here?” (p.119) What emerges from the pages of this book is an old-fashioned sense of optimistic personal loyalty. Her early retirement from the Court in 2005 at age 75 was largely due to the declining condition of her husband. When Ginsburg underwent surgery for cancer, Day O'Connor was the first to phone her and offer practical advice. When the Court struck down Virginia Military Institute's male-only admissions policy, (U.S. v. Virginia, 1996), Justice Day O'Connor insisted Ginsburg should write and deliver the opinion.

This is a significant book. However, the writing is pedestrian. As a significant work of nonfiction it is hampered by Sandra Day O'Connor's own reticence about her broader judicial reasoning. Another shortcoming is the failure to provide a chronology. Nevertheless, its highly specific approach tracing the history of gender equality rulings adds much needed clarity to the contradictory and controversial pronouncements of the Court. ...more

3

Mar 30, 2019

Wow, I had so much to think about as I read. I came in with VERY little knowledge about the SCOTUS and its proceedings, so the book was a crash course. I'm grateful for that! I admire Sandra Day O'Connor and RBG even more now, and the challenge of joining the Supreme Court as women can't be understated. I did feel like the "dual biography" aspect was not balanced, to the point of awkwardness, in favor of RBG. I was unprepared for the interstitial political connections that underpin the rulings Wow, I had so much to think about as I read. I came in with VERY little knowledge about the SCOTUS and its proceedings, so the book was a crash course. I'm grateful for that! I admire Sandra Day O'Connor and RBG even more now, and the challenge of joining the Supreme Court as women can't be understated. I did feel like the "dual biography" aspect was not balanced, to the point of awkwardness, in favor of RBG. I was unprepared for the interstitial political connections that underpin the rulings (see: no previous knowledge), so I feel like my eyes have been opened. Throughout, I had a really hard time keeping track of all of the cases, rulings, retirements, and appointments - some kind of timeline would have really helped! Regardless, I'm glad I read the book. I chose to read it to LEARN, and I did that. It's okay that it wasn't super fun times all the time.

---

Abigail Adams once predicted that if the Framers left women out of the new republic they were founding, the "ladies" would "foment a rebellion." Here it was. (38)

O'Connor's files from the early 1970s, like Ginsburg's, might be titled, "The Unexpectedly Radical Feminist Clippings File of an Apparently Unthreatening Professional Woman." (44)

Legal systems make presumptions all the time. It's the presumptions about women that Ginsburg was after. Change the standard for reviewing presumptions about women and you change the entire body of law. (71)

"As society sees what women can do, as women see what women can do, there will be more women out there doing things and we'll all be better off for it." (232, Ginsburg quoting O'Connor) ...more

5

May 19, 2019

Read this book three times (3 different book clubs). It get better each time: I learn new and interesting things. There is a stand-alone book, The First, about Sandra Day ‘O’Connor and recently a documentary and (great so I hear) movie about RBG. Given the current political environment (Georgia just past the ant-abortion heartbeat Bill), this book and its meticulous history of RBG’s rise to the Supreme Court, her firm stance for gender equality, and a women’s right to privacy is a must-read for Read this book three times (3 different book clubs). It get better each time: I learn new and interesting things. There is a stand-alone book, The First, about Sandra Day ‘O’Connor and recently a documentary and (great so I hear) movie about RBG. Given the current political environment (Georgia just past the ant-abortion heartbeat Bill), this book and its meticulous history of RBG’s rise to the Supreme Court, her firm stance for gender equality, and a women’s right to privacy is a must-read for everyone who cares about these issues. ...more

4

Sep 03, 2019

An in depth look at the first and second woman on the Supreme Court with underlying themes tackling the true differences in gender, how lived experiences affect the law, and what it truly means to wield power in the legal setting.

While it was very interesting to see the backstory of many of the classic cases we study in law school, I imagine this book would be difficult to read without a background understanding of a lot of the cases discussed here because Hirshman moves very quickly and An in depth look at the first and second woman on the Supreme Court with underlying themes tackling the true differences in gender, how lived experiences affect the law, and what it truly means to wield power in the legal setting.

While it was very interesting to see the backstory of many of the classic cases we study in law school, I imagine this book would be difficult to read without a background understanding of a lot of the cases discussed here because Hirshman moves very quickly and loosely summarizes a lot for the sake of length and time. ...more