Role Models

By now I'm sure all of you know of my, let's go with obsession, with Agent Carter and I'm sure some of you are sick of it. I'm not sorry. At all. Not even a little bit. And the entry point for this post is, you guessed it, Agent Carter.

The show combines a lot of things I love: historical fiction, beautiful cinematography, excellent dialogue, and a plethora of other things. It also is something I connect with on a more personal level. Both of my grandfathers were in the Armed Forces in WWII, albeit the Navy and in the Pacific, and one of my grandmothers was a telephone operator, Carter's fake career. There are other similarities as well. There are also other differences. My grandmother was not a government agent, she wasn't English, she never lived in New York, she didn't meet my grandfather during the War, which he lived through. I'm not going to continue down this path, suffice to say, Agent Carter connects with me.

I was lucky enough to know my grandparents as I grew up and they helped make me the person I am. (I write this on my grandfather's birthday, he'd have been 103.) In high school, I was frustrated with a situation and feeling uncertain and unconfident and visited my grandmother, who was in the hospital at the time, and I didn't even need to explain, she told me she believed in me. Now, almost 7.5 years after she died, I still remember her saying that and it still helps.

Peggy Carter reminds me of my grandmother, as I'm sure you've already guessed. Both remind me that I am valuable, that I can accomplish whatever I set out to do, to be fierce. And it doesn't matter that one of them is fictional, because what is fiction really? Fiction cannot but be a version of "reality" and what happens in the real world informs and shapes fiction. So when I aim to be Peggy Carter, I am aiming to be like my grandmother.

And that's the thing about role models. We choose them because they live in a way we want to. I find that the people I try to emulate all have the same characteristics. So it doesn't matter whether they are fictional, all that matters is whether they inspire us.

A Bartleby Sort of Feeling

I don't know how many of you are acquainted with Herman Melville's "Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall-street" but I first read it in my junior year of high school. You can read it here.

A bit of a side-note, upon rereading it, some parts stick out. The narrator, for example, first describes himself and says, "All who know me consider me an eminently safe man. The late John Jacob Astor, a personage little given to poetic enthusiasm, had no hesitation in pronouncing my first grand point to be prudence; my next, method. I do not speak it in vanity, but simply record the fact, that I was not unemployed in my profession by the late John Jacob Astor; a name which, I admit, I love to repeat, for it hath a rounded and orbicular sound to it, and rings like unto bullion." These three sentences do not matter much to the rest of the story, except that they characterize the narrator. A safe man who lives a rather unexciting life. It could be argued Bartleby is the most exciting thing to happen to him.

The main subject of the piece, Bartleby, works as a scrivener--a clerk or scribe. All he does is copy documents for the narrator. When called upon to go over a piece of work with the narrator to confirm the copy, he says, "I would prefer not to." After Bartleby refuses to read the copies a few times the narrator says, "With any other man I should have flown outright into a dreadful passion, scorned all further words, and thrust him ignominiously from my presence. But here was something about Bartleby that not only strangely disarmed me, but in a wonderful manner touched and disconcerted me." Bartleby never says he will not do something, just that he would prefer not to: in response to the question "You will not?" he says, "I prefer not."

As the story progresses, the list of things Bartleby prefers not to do increases. Fetch the mail, fetch one of the other scriveners, help tie a package up, let the narrator into the office at one point. Eventually Bartleby prefers not to work. The narrator cannot rid himself nor the office of Bartleby and eventually moves offices entirely.

But Bartleby prefers not to leave the office, indeed "at present [he] would prefer not to make any change at all."

The landlord has Bartleby arrested and taken away as a vagrant and the narrator visits him. Bartleby turns down a dinner offer. A few days later, the narrator visits him again but this time Bartleby is dead. He preferred not to live, presumedly. The narrator concludes his tail with "Ah Bartleby! Ah humanity!"

A Bartleby sort of feeling is when you would simply prefer not to. When a choice presents itself--what to have for lunch, finding a new job, deciding what is next--your response is "I would prefer not to."  You know you should choose something or do something and you are not saying you will not do it, just that you would prefer not to. Some days are just Bartleby days.

"Do you see the day I've had?"

This is my second "Agent Carter" post. I'll try to avoid spoilers. The title of this one is a line from the third episode. Although I love most of the lines in the show, this line speaks to me. Carter says it after a long day of being underestimated and demeaned by her supposed partner, her boss, and her coworkers. Although Peggy gives into what is being said to her, the audience can see what she's saying. Her day had been hellish.

As I mentioned in my first blog, Peggy Carter takes up space. Even when she is ignore by her coworkers, her presence is noticeable. Although when she wants to be, she can be invisible. She dresses to fit the occasion. When infiltrating a party to steal a bomb, she dresses to the nines. When walking through the sewer, she wears a jumpsuit. In both situations, she gets into fights and wins.

There are numerous parallels between Peggy Carter and Captain America. It becomes difficult to separate the two. After watching the first Captain America movie and "Agent Carter", their fighting styles are very similar--brute force-- and what they are fighting for is identical. Throughout the season, we see Peggy deal with the lingering grief over Steve Rogers' death (at least as far as anyone in 1946 knows). She isn't turned into a vigilante superhero by her grief like Batman. She moves through grief like the rest of us. Eventually she accepts that they have to let him go, but that doesn't mean forgetting.

Halfway through the season, there is a confrontation between Peggy and one of her friends/allies. She has been lied to and reacts by punching him in the face. To be fair, this is one of Peggy's main reactions. She says, "You don't get to use my reaction to your lies as a reason for your lies." I love this line. Lying friend is trying to justify his actions with saying he knew Peggy would react this way and she refuses to let him off the hook.

A lot of what she says resonates. She is a character I can identify with and that makes me happy.

Within half an hour of starting the show, I had found a new role model. Peggy Carter can stick up for herself and knows what she can do. She is fashionable and smart, classy and strong. While her entire office plays right into the hands of the bad guys, she works faster, smarter, and better than them. By the end of the season, she says "I know my value, anyone else's opinion doesn't really matter." And that is something hard to fully believe. Society inundates us with images of what we should be, especially women and it is hard to find value in yourself sometimes, especially when the people around you, without meaning to often, don't. "I know my value, anyone else's opinion doesn't really matter."

Peggy Carter: The Hero We Need

This is one half of a blog about the TV show "Agent Carter". You won't have to read both for them to make sense, so if one or the other isn't you're cup of tea, don't worry. This first one will be about the place "Agent Carter" has in the bigger media landscape; the second about why I love it.

Some of you might recognize the second half of the title from the end of "The Dark Knight", the second of Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy. The quote, as said by Commissioner Gordon, is, "Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now." Having finished the first season of "Agent Carter" I believe she's the hero we need in TV today. Peggy Carter is not a superhero.

First a little background. Agent Peggy Carter is first introduced in Marvel's Captain America: The First Avenger and in her first scene, knocks a guy flat on his face when he underestimates her. Between 2011 and 2015, Peggy Carter was in a short film and as an old woman in Captain America: The Winter Soldier. "Agent Carter" is Marvel's foray into having a woman-lead film or show. "Agents of SHIELD" is more an ensemble show. "Captain Marvel", scheduled for release in 2018, will feature the story of Ms. Marvel.

"Agent Carter" is not only a first in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) but also a first in terms of the larger TV/film retellings of comics. In between "Wonder Woman" (1975-1979) and now, women have not lead the way. Although women make up much of the audience, they are still denied representation. (Please do your own research on this, if it interests you.) Since 1975, there have been more than 20 film and television productions of Superman. In the same time span, roughly the same number of productions for Batman. Recently, The Flash, Green Lantern, the Green Hornet, the Green Arrow, Thor, Iron Man, and the Hulk have all been the subject of TV shows or films.

I've done a lot of reading about "Agent Carter" and I've found a lot I love about Hayley Atwell's portrayal of the character and how she is written. I love the show. Peggy Carter takes up space unapologetically and fights in a way that is unique among current Marvel women. Most noticeably to me is how she differs from Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow. Black Widow fights with ruthless grace. Peggy Carter bulldozes through opponents, using whatever blunt object is near at hand. Men underestimate her, and the other women in the show, and they use it to their advantage.

A further reason to love "Agent Cater" is the supporting cast. I won't go on at length about most of them. The characters that start the show as somewhat two-dimensional sexists jerks (products of the time that seem almost cartoonish) evolve to become fleshed-out, with back stories and lives that are not immediately visible. In 8 episodes it is difficult to have too much character development, but the men Carter works with become less like cartoon villains and more like people. The best characters are the other women in Carter's life, although there are not many.

In judging shows and films there is a test called the Bechdel test. It is used to judge gender bias and has three requirements: the production being judged has to have two women in it, who talk to each other, about something other than a man. (Wikipedia is a good starting place for more info.) In the first scene of "Agent Carter", Carter's roommate comes home and they discuss her work as a riveter and their plans for the weekend. Later on in the series, Carter discusses her friend Angie's acting career and sites to see in New York with a new woman, Dottie.

The cinematography is excellent as is the casting, the writing, and the acting. I can't recommend a show more. And it is only 8 episodes currently. I am unsure if the first few are currently available, but if you can watch it, you should.

Feminism and the Myth of "Women's Issues"

In the past year, I’ve become more socially aware than I ever thought I would be. Because of my studies of history, I’ve always been inclined to be interested in current events and how they have been shaped by the past. And how the past is used to explain or justify actions in the present. There are many issues that I find compelling, but there is one in particular I find central to my new found awareness: feminism.

Throughout all of Western history, essentially Europe and North America, women have been seen as lesser. Of course, in some societies, women have been equal, for example the Spartans. In Sparta, women owned property, were educated, and controlled most of society outside the army.

I’m not saying other societies didn’t value women: they did, but that is the problem. I’m going to limit this discussion to the time since, and inclusive of, the Victorian Era. The very first women’s rights and feminist movements began during this time, but so did the idea of separate spheres for men and women. Although not all women could limit themselves to one sphere, this idea “came to influence the choices and experiences of all women” (Abrams, “Ideals of Womanhood in Victorian Britain). According to the “separate spheres” way of thinking, “woman [were] in the private sphere of the home and hearth, man in the public sphere of business, politics and sociability” (Abrams). The Industrial Revolution helped fuel these ideas. With the abundance of factories and workshops completely separated from the home, women no longer could work and parent simultaneously. Women gained power as moral arbiters in society because of their “innate moral goodness” (Abrams). Fashion, at least for the wealthy and middle class women, changed as a consequence.

By the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, women’s suffrage movements were underway. Women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst are some of the most famous leaders of these movements. Women wanted nothing more than to be able to vote for the people who governed them and they were mocked, attacked, arrested, imprisoned. In England, as a protest to their imprisonment, women, led by Marion Wallace Dunlop, started a hunger strike, which led to their eventual forced feeding. The situation in the United States was less physically dramatic. In 1869, the women’s suffrage movement split over the acceptance of the 15^th Amendment, banning voting discrimination based on race but not gender. What would eventually become the 19^th Amendment, which grants women the vote, was introduced in 1878.

The American women’s suffrage movement was split a different way as well. Some women thought change could only be accomplished through radical actions—breaking the structures that confined them. Other women embraced the idea of woman as moral compass and proposed to change society through the avenues already open to them.

Second-wave feminism began in the U.S. in the 1960s, spread through the Western world, and lasted until the 1980s. Second-wave feminism focused on sexuality, reproductive rights, workplace inequality, domestic violence, and divorce. The Equal Rights Amendment was the main focus of the movement. The ERA never passed. It would have read:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

A few years ago, I wrote a paper for my Modern U.S. History class about Supreme Court cases involving women’s rights. Had the ERA passed, many of the cases would have been ruled differently. Instead of challenging practices or laws based on the 14^th Amendment, or the 5^th, or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, they could have been challenged directly by the ERA.

During this time, the United States Education Amendments of 1972 were passed. These Amendments contained Title IX. Title IX states, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of gender, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” Title IX allowed girls to participate in sports at all levels and with equal opportunities as the boys in their schools. Additionally, girls had to have the equipment to play, schedules to compete and practice, funding, locker rooms, and coaches and trainers. Schools were also required to provide housing and dining facilities. And the opportunity to receive instruction in mathematics only. Title IX remains significant and necessary.

Recently feminism has gained popularity. There are discussions whether “feminism” and “feminist” need to be rebranded. I think that is a stupid idea. Feminist means someone who believes in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. Or, in the radical notion that women are people. Things that get rebranded are things that no longer appeal to the masses. Like the reimaging of the Apple logo. Or the Adidas logo. Or the Pepsi logo. I’m not going to apologize for thinking the idea that feminism needs rebranding like a soda company is stupid. Has the definition of feminism changed? No. Has the need for feminism ended? No. Is there still structural inequality between men and women? Yes.

The difference is that “feminism” and “feminist” have been slandered so often that they’ve become somewhat dirty. People are ashamed to say they’re feminist. Instead of seeing a diverse group of people who simply want more from society, the popular image is a raving mob of bra-burners. This popular image is, let’s go with, wrong.

I could now inundate you with statistics of unequal pay for equal work and statistics of rape and rape culture. Or I could tell you of the number of laws passed that not only restrict access to abortions but to any healthcare at all. But I won’t. Although “women’s issues” generally relate to birth control and abortion, every issue is a women’s issue. Because women are members of society.

The term “women’s issues” is very troubling. It implies that women can only be interested, specifically, in abortion and such, rather than in every aspect of society. However, that isn’t the only reason I’m bothered by it. Let’s take birth control. Yes, it is a contraceptive. But it can also be used to treat other medical conditions. Free and easy access to birth control would vastly improve the lives of millions of people, worldwide. But the Madonna-whore complex is still prevalent. And women using contraception flies in the face of the idea of women as mothers first. And it would give women autonomy. So, our patriarchal society has a vested interest in limiting access. Instead of women being allowed to decide what is best for themselves, governments and religious institutions get involved. There are judgements thrust upon individuals.

There will be people who will say that birth control and abortion are certainly issues for all of society. That in order to prevent the “moral decline” of society men must to be involved. But what happened to the idea that women were possessed of “innate moral goodness”? And what about other issues that threaten the “moral decline” of society? Too often discussions of those issues do not include women in any meaningful way or women’s opinions are written off.

There are too many situations where women are devalued as people with legitimate ideas and opinions. Where we are objectified. Or treated as children. Or where respect is denied for seemingly no reason.

In order to fight the systematic injustices to women, we first must understand them. And then we must choose: do we work within the systems, no matter how unjust, to change things or do we demolish the systems and build new, equal structures?

Sources:

http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/women%20in%20sparta.htm

Abrams, Lynn. “Ideals of Womenhood in Victorian Britain.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/ history/trail/victorian_britain/women_home/ideals_womanhood_01.shtml.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX

Remembrance Day 2014

            Remembrance Day, or as we call it here in the States, Veterans Day, has a long history. Or as long as just under a hundred years can be. As with many things in modern society, this day traces its origins to the First World War. As always, I have a bit of a history lesson and then some of my own thoughts.

            First, the history. Remembrance Day, as Remembrance Day, was designated by King George V on 7 November 1919 but is now observed on this day, 11 November. 11 November is Armistice Day—the First World War armistice became official at the 11^th hour of the 11^th day of the 11^th month. (The war did not end until the end of June 1919.) Today, Remembrance Day is celebrated (although I’m not entirely happy with “celebrated”) in the Commonwealth Nations—53 countries including the UK, India, Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. Throughout the Commonwealth, the red poppy is used to symbolize the day.

            In France and Belgium, Remembrance Day commemorations are similar, but in France, the blue cornflower symbolizes the day. Germany does not mark the anniversary of the armistice, but rather has Volkstrauertag (people’s mourning day), observed on the Sunday closest to 16 November.

            And now the United States. In the U.S., 11 November is called Veterans Day, to recognized the sacrifices made by all veterans in all the country’s wars. Veterans Day was established after the Korean War. Memorial Day, celebrated at the end of May, commemorates the people who died while serving in the Armed Forces during conflicts. Memorial Day was established as Decoration Day just after the American Civil War. Some similar events were held in the final year of the war, but were not formal or nationwide.

The Tower of London put on a special poppy installation, Blood Swept Lands and Seas of Red, starting in August with most of it being taken down tomorrow. In total there are 888,246 ceramic poppies, one for each of the British fatalities in WWI.

            The most visible sign of Remembrance Day is the poppy because of the large amount that grew in the fields of Northern France and Flanders, where the UK and Colonial soldiers fought most in Europe. One of the most popular First World War poems focuses on poppies. John McCrae wrote “In Flanders Fields” on 3 May 1915. It reads

In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row,

That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved and were loved, and now we lie

In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

            Like most World War One poetry, there is a feeling of desolation. When I was in Manchester researching over the summer, the Imperial War Museum Manchester had a early version of Wilfred Owen’s “Dolce et Decorum est”. It is one thing to read it online, but it is completely different to see a handwritten original copy.

            To me, Remembrance Day, or Veterans Day or Armistice Day, is not simply about remembering the sacrifices made in the past (or made in the present). It is also about thinking about why we the day exists. When we remember our family members who served, we should also remember why they did. I have spent much of my academic career studying the First World War, so I have a good understanding of the ways in which that war changed the world. (No, I do not think that to be an overstatement, however, the substantiation for that claim is the topic of another blog.)

            When we remember today, we should also remember the upheaval caused by war—the changes to geopolitical relationships, the changes to social norms, and the changes to economies. This type of remembrance is not easy; it takes some critical thinking. It is easy to wear a poppy, or to send a 140-character tweet, or to post a cookie-cutter Facebook status. But it is much more difficult to look at war and the damage it causes, especially the 20^th century wars, and to remember how we still feel the effects of wars that happened a hundred years ago (or longer, but, again, a subject for a different time).

            If you want to learn more about the First World War, I have a slew of books I can recommend. But, if you want something less academic, and more fun, I recommend the Horrible Histories First World War special. It is available currently in the UK on BBC iPlayer but in the US, you might have to do some digging. (I recommend Horrible Histories if you want a fun way to learn about history in general.)

            Though the methods change over time, war wreaks destruction on all societies. In remembering the sacrifices made during war, we attempt to maintain a connection to them. We honor them, but we also try to validate their suffering—to prove that we are different, that we have learned something.

            I will conclude here. With “For a War Memorial” (1922) by G.K. Chesterton:

The hucksters haggle in the mart

The cars and carts go by;

Senates and schools go droning on;

For dead things cannot die.

A storm stooped on the place of tombs

With bolts to blast and rive;

But these be names of many men

The lightning found alive.

If usurers rule and rights decay

And visions view once more

Great Cathage like a golden shell

Gape hollow on the shore,

Still to the last of crumbling time

Upon this stone be read

How many men of England died

To prove they were not dead.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrance_Day

http://www.bbc.co.uk/remembrance/how/poppy.shtml

http://www.greatwar.co.uk/poems/john-mccrae-in-flanders-fields.htm

http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/177818

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Supreme Court

As some of you may recall, one of the classes I took when I was is D.C. was “Controversy and the Supreme Court.” That class started my interest in the Court (SCOTUS). Since then, I’ve written a term paper about SCOTUS decisions relating to women’s rights. I’ve also read quite a few decisions for fun. Additionally, I think Court decisions are something everybody should at least be aware of. They set legal precedence and impact how laws are interpreted. A future blog might delve a bit into the history of the Court. This blog, however, is going to be about Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG), my favorite Justice.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was born in 1933 in New York and graduated from Columbia Law School. She worked for the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. She was the first female member of the Harvard Law Review. President Carter appointed her to the Court of Appeals in 1980. In 1993, she was appointed to the Supreme Court. She was the second woman appointed to the Court. (Sandra Day O’Connor was the first, but she is a different story.)

RBG has always been a staunch advocate of gender equality. Many of the cases she argued before SCOTUS were gender-based, including a case that “involved a portion of the Social Security Act that favored women over men because it granted certain benefits to widows but not widowers.” She won the case. (In case you’re interested, the case is Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld.)

Part of the reason I like RBG is the way she writes. In the past 21 years, she’s written a ton of opinions, but I’m going to take a look at a few specific ones. First, her opinion for the Court in United States v. Virginia et al. (1996), decided 7-1 in favor of the United States. In this case, the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) and the state of Virginia were sued “alleging that VMI’s exclusively male admission policy violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.” In order for the Court to have decided in favor of VMI, they would have had to “demonstrate an ‘exceedingly persuasive justification’ for” denying women admittance, which it did not do. Ginsburg writes about VMI’s plans for education thusly, “However well this plan serves Virginia’s sons, it makes no provision whatever for her daughters.” She then addresses the Constitutional concerns: “The constitutional violation in this case is the categorical exclusion of women, in disregard of their individual merit, from an extraordinary educational opportunity afforded men.” There is no question of what is at issue in this case.

In Ginsburg’s Bush v. Gore dissent, she writes, “I might join The Chief Justice were it my commission to interpret Florida law.” She does not see this as the case in this instance. Inevitably, SCOTUS deals with state laws and possible conflicts state laws have with federal laws. However, “Rarely has this Court rejected outright an interpretation of state law by a state high court.” The three cases listed as examples “are embedded in historical contexts hardly comparable to the situation here.” Ginsburg’s dissent is straightforward. She concludes with, “In sum, the Court’s conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court’s own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States. I dissent.” The final two sentences of her dissent are a harsh condemnation of the Court’s decision. And she omits the “respectfully” from her official dissension sentence.

In 2007, Ginsburg issued a dissent in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. This was a case about gender pay discrimination, ruled 5-4 in favor of Goodyear. The ruling was based on a time limit on filing discrimination claims and a lack of evidence. Ginsburg equates pay disparities and hostile work environments because of their repeated, long-term nature. As for the lack of evidence cited by the majority, Ginsburg writes,

“To show how far the Court has strayed from the interpretation of the Title VII with fidelity to the Act’s core purpose, I return to the evidence Ledbetter presented at trial. Ledbetter proved to the jury the following: She was a member of a protected class; she performed work substantially equal to work of the dominant class (men); she was compensated less for that work; and the disparity was attributable to gender-based discrimination… Specifically, Ledbetter’s evidence demonstrated that her current pay was discriminatorily low due to a long series of decisions reflecting Goodyear’s pervasive discrimination against women managers in general and Ledbetter in particular.”

This is my favorite part of her dissent in this case, although there are a few other sentences that are particularly good as well.

In 2013, Ginsburg issued the dissent in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder. This case dealt with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, specifically Section 5. Section 5 deals with preclearance—a requirement that sought to prevent districts, and states, with a history of discriminating against minorities in the creation of voting districts from redistricting in a way that furthers discrimination. Although the main offenders of racial gerrymandering were in the South, other counties and states were subject to preclearance. Outside the South, the whole state of Alaska and counties in California, New York, and South Dakota, and townships in Michigan, were on the list. The two counties in South Dakota are both Native American reservations. Ginsburg’s dissent starts by acknowledging the continued existence of voter discrimination and the steps Congress had taken to overcome that discrimination (mainly the repeated reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act) and then provides many examples of the necessity of preclearance. As in many of her dissents, Ginsburg’s conclusion is the strongest condemnation of the majority opinion. Here she says, “In my judgment, the Court errs egregiously by overriding Congress’ decision.”

RBG has written dissents in some other really important recent cases, al of which are good reads. Most recently, she issued a dissent in the Texas Voter ID Law challenge, to which no majority opinion was offered, at 5am.

Finally, there is a really good interview with RBG, available here.

I know this was a bit long, but I hope I’ve shared some of my love for the Supreme Court, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. SCOTUS decisions are incredibly important. In conclusion, RBG is awesome.

Sources:

http://www.biography.com/people/ruth-bader-ginsburg-9312041#synopsis

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/25/justice-ginsburgs-record-breaking-day

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-1941.ZS.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD2.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1074.ZD.html

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/sec_5/covered.php

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-96#writing-12-96_DISSENT_5

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/18/ruth-bader-ginsburg-voter-id-dissent_n_6007612.html