What do you think?
Rate this book
Sisters in Law: How Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Went to the Supreme Court and Changed the World
The author of the celebrated Victory tells the fascinating story of the intertwined lives of Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the first and second women to serve as Supreme Court justices.
The relationship between Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg—Republican and Democrat, Christian and Jew, western rancher’s daughter and Brooklyn girl—transcends party, religion, region, and culture. Strengthened by each other’s presence, these groundbreaking judges, the first and second to serve on the highest court in the land, have transformed the Constitution and America itself, making it a more equal place for all women.
Linda Hirshman’s dual biography includes revealing stories of how these trailblazers fought for their own recognition in a male-dominated profession—battles that would ultimately benefit every American woman. She also makes clear how these two justices have shaped the legal framework of modern feminism, including employment discrimination, abortion, affirmative action, sexual harassment, and many other issues crucial to women’s lives.
Sisters-in-Law combines legal detail with warm personal anecdotes that bring these very different women into focus as never before. Meticulously researched and compellingly told, it is an authoritative account of our changing law and culture, and a moving story of a remarkable friendship.
421 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 1, 2015
1242 people are currently reading
11611 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 788 reviews
April 19, 2021
Final review: This book has been waiting for a final review for more than a year! To sum up, Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg came from opposite ends of the spectrum and this is reflected in how they used their power. SDoC came from privilege, from rich White Christian privilege where males are the boss of the home and the providers and women, even when powerful, are careful not to upset men, but are the peacemakers, the ones who will negotiate and compromise. And so she was the swing vote.
Contrast RBG, she came from a poor immigrant background, not quite 'White' if White is a political construct and not a skin colour, as she was Jewish, and she had to fight very hard to get her education and even harder to get a job. When being Jewish didn't stand in her way, being a woman did. There were no privileges for her. Her religion stood her well in one particular respect. In the home, it is Jewish women who lead the most important ceremony of the most important day of the religion, the bringing in of Shabbat, this is a powerful position. And despite all the tell-all books of the Satmar Hasidim, they are very rarely subservient as they have many more rights in education and marriage . So RBG knew what discrimination was and this put her in the liberal camp, from which she never wavered.
Although SDoC was not particularly feminist-minded, the very wealthy rarely need to be, and although racial discrimination wasn't something she had even seen up close enough to matter to her to be a major point of her time at the SC, her vote made a difference often on these issues.
SDoC's fame rests on her being the first woman judge in the SC, and it was her background, her upbringing not to make waves as much as her intelligence that got her there. RBG was a tiny, burning firebrand feminist who fought for equality for all, having come from nothing, she wanted everyone, men and women, white and non-white to have the same opportunities in law. And the book is more about her.
I'm not an American. I don't have a huge interest in internal American politics, so this review is based on the book, and not on knowledge of individual cases, laws and decisions.
_______________
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.
Finished Dec 2, 2019, review notes Dec 28, 2020, final review Apr 20, 2021
Contrast RBG, she came from a poor immigrant background, not quite 'White' if White is a political construct and not a skin colour, as she was Jewish, and she had to fight very hard to get her education and even harder to get a job. When being Jewish didn't stand in her way, being a woman did. There were no privileges for her. Her religion stood her well in one particular respect. In the home, it is Jewish women who lead the most important ceremony of the most important day of the religion, the bringing in of Shabbat, this is a powerful position. And despite all the tell-all books of the Satmar Hasidim, they are very rarely subservient as they have many more rights in education and marriage . So RBG knew what discrimination was and this put her in the liberal camp, from which she never wavered.
Although SDoC was not particularly feminist-minded, the very wealthy rarely need to be, and although racial discrimination wasn't something she had even seen up close enough to matter to her to be a major point of her time at the SC, her vote made a difference often on these issues.
SDoC's fame rests on her being the first woman judge in the SC, and it was her background, her upbringing not to make waves as much as her intelligence that got her there. RBG was a tiny, burning firebrand feminist who fought for equality for all, having come from nothing, she wanted everyone, men and women, white and non-white to have the same opportunities in law. And the book is more about her.
I'm not an American. I don't have a huge interest in internal American politics, so this review is based on the book, and not on knowledge of individual cases, laws and decisions.
_______________
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.
Finished Dec 2, 2019, review notes Dec 28, 2020, final review Apr 20, 2021
September 19, 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 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.
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.
April 24, 2021
Finally, finally got to this book.
Reading four or five books about RBG, it was my mistake not to read enough about Sandra D-O .
While these two women grew up in totally different environments, I was curious see any similarities from their youth which would form their driving passion of law.
My interests circled around their disagreements of legal opinions and their separate manner of style used when "approaching" specific hard core issues.
While their opinions and approaches were indeed different, they shared the same values and opinions in their expression of women's rights; as the book says "in judging ".
Sadly we lost RBG last year, and at 91 SD-O I believe, has been stricken with a touch of dementia.
Two woman having incredible minds and voices did in fact change the world..
In recognizing these women were fair justices regardless of what side we as readers stand on,
I would be remiss if I left out the fact that both SCJ are outstanding roles models for anyone to emulate.
The book in my opinion deserves 5 stars
Reading four or five books about RBG, it was my mistake not to read enough about Sandra D-O .
While these two women grew up in totally different environments, I was curious see any similarities from their youth which would form their driving passion of law.
My interests circled around their disagreements of legal opinions and their separate manner of style used when "approaching" specific hard core issues.
While their opinions and approaches were indeed different, they shared the same values and opinions in their expression of women's rights; as the book says "in judging ".
Sadly we lost RBG last year, and at 91 SD-O I believe, has been stricken with a touch of dementia.
Two woman having incredible minds and voices did in fact change the world..
In recognizing these women were fair justices regardless of what side we as readers stand on,
I would be remiss if I left out the fact that both SCJ are outstanding roles models for anyone to emulate.
The book in my opinion deserves 5 stars
December 24, 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 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.
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.
June 3, 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 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!
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!
February 1, 2020
Admittedly, this might not be as 'riveting' for non-lawyers but for me it read like a legal thriller.
October 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 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.
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.
September 8, 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 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.
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.
November 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 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.
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.
May 21, 2020
my legal brain enjoyed reading this!!
March 15, 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 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.
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.
October 9, 2020
3.5 stars
While it started out relatively balanced in the early chapters, the book devotes more pages to Ginsburg than to O'Connor - indeed, once O'Connor retires, we only get back to her once or twice in the end of the book. More focus is given to RBG's systematic dismantling of laws centered around gender discrimination, although Hirshman does a good job of pointing out instances where the lady Justices were able to work together.
I must confess I was expecting a book about their relationship, rather than something of a dual-biography. If you've read NOTORIOUS RBG, the last section is basically a quick retread of that book, which I found a bit pointless - just go read that one if you want to. Read them both. READ THEM ALLLLL.
While it started out relatively balanced in the early chapters, the book devotes more pages to Ginsburg than to O'Connor - indeed, once O'Connor retires, we only get back to her once or twice in the end of the book. More focus is given to RBG's systematic dismantling of laws centered around gender discrimination, although Hirshman does a good job of pointing out instances where the lady Justices were able to work together.
I must confess I was expecting a book about their relationship, rather than something of a dual-biography. If you've read NOTORIOUS RBG, the last section is basically a quick retread of that book, which I found a bit pointless - just go read that one if you want to. Read them both. READ THEM ALLLLL.
September 9, 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 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.
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.
June 24, 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. 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.
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.
May 22, 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 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
January 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 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.
February 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.
December 9, 2021
While I have long been an admirer of Sandra Day O’Connor and curious about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I knew the barest facts about both. This book richly illustrates their path to the Supreme Court. Both had very different journeys and those journeys deeply impacted their time on the court. I learned so much and enjoyed every minute of listening to this audiobook I highly recommend it to those who have an interest in the law, history or the development of women.
June 26, 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 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!
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!
December 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
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
April 1, 2022
I really enjoyed this dual biography of these two very special women and the struggles they both lived through to get their voices heard in a society that would much prefer for them to be quiet and "stay in their lane". I believe all women no matter who you are stand on their shoulders, specially those of RBG. This book also makes me sad when you realize how much we are losing, that we're all going backwards, not just women but also minorities, the poor, LGBTQ and anyone who doesn't fall in line with the status quo. Unfortunately a lot of young women take the rights and freedoms we still do have for granted, and I'm afraid if we don't find a better way to inspire them to fight it it could all be gone very soon.
February 27, 2020
I actually abandoned the book. It was not so much about the two women's lives as the two women's successes as lawyers. I read the book for a week and didn't even get halfway through. It was one litigation after another leading up to their appointments. It just wasn't what I was expecting.
January 30, 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.
September 13, 2023
Well done but I already knew all of this.
December 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 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.
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.
January 20, 2022
This book went in a pretty academic direction. I learned quite a bit about SDO, having read some already on RBG. And it was great to read of both their many accomplishments. I was disappointed that it was all pretty academic focused and there were very little personal connections brought out.
July 5, 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 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.
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.
September 26, 2020
The tracking of the judicial records of both women, as well as their prior careers, and the political context is fascinating and informative. Including internal politics of the Supreme Court.
However, what is described in the blurb as a fun and gossipy tone is more a cacophony of superlatives, which are not in the least helpful. Saying that something is brilliant, scathing, or sharp repeatedly won't convince me, if upon reading it I didn't find it so, and if I did the overstatement is just repetitive and distracting.
More concerning is the author's repeated attempts to paint things that are classically liberal as radical, and things that are conservative as liberal, because it fits her thesis. She doesn't seem to have a good grasp of the history of feminism outside the court room, but attempts to place these two careers in that very context.
I learned a great deal from this book, and have therefore cautiously recommended it to those interested in RBG, especially since she recently passed away. If there was a better review of her judicial career, or better yet, of all the women who have served on the SC to date, I would have preferred that.
So yes - informative! But only after cutting through the noise.
However, what is described in the blurb as a fun and gossipy tone is more a cacophony of superlatives, which are not in the least helpful. Saying that something is brilliant, scathing, or sharp repeatedly won't convince me, if upon reading it I didn't find it so, and if I did the overstatement is just repetitive and distracting.
More concerning is the author's repeated attempts to paint things that are classically liberal as radical, and things that are conservative as liberal, because it fits her thesis. She doesn't seem to have a good grasp of the history of feminism outside the court room, but attempts to place these two careers in that very context.
I learned a great deal from this book, and have therefore cautiously recommended it to those interested in RBG, especially since she recently passed away. If there was a better review of her judicial career, or better yet, of all the women who have served on the SC to date, I would have preferred that.
So yes - informative! But only after cutting through the noise.
February 13, 2016
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.
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.
April 28, 2016
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.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 788 reviews