Linda Hirshman’s novel, “Sisters in Law: How Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Went to the Supreme Court and Changed the World,” follows the lives and careers of Justices O’Connor and Ginsburg. Although O’Connor and Ginsburg have drastically different political views and backgrounds, they both experienced many of the same obstacles in their legal careers.

Ginsburg’s educational career at Cornell and Columbia Law Schools was marked by discrimination based on her gender. She faced discrimination from a professor who asked the female law students to justify taking a man’s spot and from employers who told her they couldn’t hire female attorneys to preserve their firm’s reputation. 

Hirshman follows Ginsburg’s career as an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union where she advocated for women’s rights and gender equality in multiple Supreme Court cases. Her path to the Supreme Court is inspiring for women in the legal field and paved the way for women’s rights.

O’Connor’s career followed a different path. She attended Stanford University but had the same difficulties as Ginsburg when finding employment before becoming a judge and elected official in Arizona. Justice O’Connor is the first female Supreme Court Justice. Although she is not as vocal of a feminist as Ginsburg, Hirshman makes it clear that she played an important role in the fight for women’s rights and representation. 

This book is an enjoyable read because of its engaging writing style and important message. Hirshman does an excellent job of making court cases and the legal system easy to follow and understand for the reader. 

While reading, I learned a lot about different court cases that I was previously unaware of, which was interesting because it demonstrates the long fight for gender equality and the strategies employed to give legal protections to women. Through reading about O’Connor and Ginsburg’s contributions to the legal field and the struggles they endured, I gained a greater appreciation and respect for both women. Hirshman captures the distinct personalities of both Ginsburg and O’Connor while simultaneously connecting both of their careers to illustrate the broader picture of women’s rights and feminism’s impact on society.

I would recommend this book to everyone since I think this topic is important. In particular, I would recommend this book to pre-law students because it helped me gain a broader view of the legal field and gave me a stronger appreciation for the opportunities afforded to me because of Justices Ginsburg and O’Connor.

On Aug. 18, the United States experienced a tremendous loss. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a feminist icon, key leader in the legal fight for women’s rights since the 1970s and a jurisprudential giant, died at age 87. Her death is unleashing a new fierce battle in an already badly divided country and renewing criticism of the Supreme Court structure. 

Nominated by President Bill Clinton and confirmed to the Court in 1993, Ginsburg served on the Supreme Court for 27 years, emerging as a leader of the Court’s liberal wing and amassing a devoted following around the country.

Yet, scarcely had word rippled out about the justice’s death when Washington began gearing up for a fraught political fight about filling Ginsburg’s seat.

President Trump tweeted out the same night that he intended to nominate a successor, throwing the country’s rapt attention to the Senate.

Democratic lawmakers, immediately recalling Senate Republicans’ treatment of President Obama’s nominee for Justice Scalia’s successor in 2016, began clamoring for their Senate colleagues to honor the new precedent they had established. Senate Republicans refused to conduct confirmation hearings for Garland more than eight months before the 2016 election, frequently citing the nearness of the election as the reason. 

Meanwhile, GOP leaders pivoted from the Garland case to the longer history of the Senate where there has been a history of the Senate confirming a Supreme Court justice in an election year.  

Given the current disposition of the Senate, if the Democratic Caucus and the Independents that caucus with them were to collectively oppose the nomination, four Republican Senators would have to defect in order to stall confirmation until after the presidential inauguration. 

Though the immediate question is who should name Justice Ginsburg’s successor, that question was effectively answered when Senator Romney (R-Utah), a potential defector, came out in favor of President Trump’s right to nominate a successor. 

Given the nearly unified stance the Senate Republican Caucus has taken on the issue, it is exceedingly improbable that the seat will go unfilled until after the next inauguration. 

The real question, then, is one over the Supreme Court selection process itself, which inspires nearly universal discontent. 

The fact that the country had to pivot to this fight with hardly a moment to simply mourn Justice Ginsburg and pay tribute to her many accomplishments is an egregious example of the brokenness of the Supreme Court nomination process.  

On the Left, this discontent was vividly on display in the days following Ginsburg’s death. Tributes for Ginsburg, celebrating all the causes she fought for and the advances she helped wrought were mingled with profound dread as to who President Trump and Senate Republicans would tap to replace her.  

This dread is not limited to the liberals, however. Republicans who are eager to solidify the conservative tilt of the high court should recall their initial fears when Justice Scalia died during President Obama’s term. Fear of a Democratic President replacing the influential conservative is what led Senate Republicans to take the norm-shattering step of refusing confirmation hearings to Judge Garland. 

It is shameful that any period of mourning for Ginsburg was preempted and that, instead, those who celebrate the justice had to prepare for an intense political fight over her successor.

Even worse is word from Ginsburg’s family that the justice herself had to worry on her deathbed about the effect her passing would have on the U.S. Any reasonable observer should agree that a dying 87-year-old being concerned about the political impact of her death is an arresting illustration of a broken process. 

Yet, she did. And as her granddaughter has shared, Ginsburg’s dying wish was to not be replaced until after the next inauguration. A dying wish that Senator McConnell and President Trump could not wait even a full day before announcing their intent to trample upon.

Outrage at how Senate Republicans handled the Garland nomination and how they are planning on handling the new vacancy has given fresh vitality to the idea of expanding the Supreme Court if the Democrats win control of Congress and the White House after the 2020 election. 

While this idea has merit, particularly when progressives imagine a reactionary Court striking down critical and time-sensitive climate change legislation, it carries risks.

Expanding the Supreme Court risks Republicans retaliating the next time they regain power. Even if they do not, considering that the Supreme Court is an institution that depends upon the recognition of its legitimacy, expanding the Court will almost assuredly damage the Court’s legitimacy in the eyes of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents even more than the treatment of Garland harmed it in the eyes of progressives. 

Furthermore, influential party leaders including former Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) have explicitly opposed the idea in the past.  

There are alternatives to the country having to undergo a polarizing and traumatic fight every time a Supreme Court seat becomes vacant. 

Indeed, most of the world’s liberal democracies have effectively taken steps to prevent such fraught processes. No other major democracy grants their version of the Supreme Court justices lifetime appointment.

Germany, for example, appoints justices for a single nonrenewable twelve-year term. Through the still considerable length of the term and the non-renewability, this concept still preserves judicial independence while conferring several frequently cited benefits.  

First, it helps regularize the appointment process. Barring deaths or unexpected retirements, presidents would be assured a stable number of appointments. As it stands now, the number of seats a president has the opportunity to fill is capricious and irregular. In a single term President Carter named zero in the same time President Trump will, in all likelihood, have named three. 

Secondly, it would halt the process of justices clinging to their seats well into their seventies and eighties. Even with Ginsburg’s death, four of the Supreme Court justices are above the age of 70. There have been real concerns before about justices serving to an advanced age. 

After Justice William Douglas had a stroke but refused to retire, seven of the other justices privately agreed that they would postpone any case where Douglas would be the decisive vote. The risk of such ad hoc decisions being necessary would likely be significantly reduced if the Supreme Court had term limits. 

Democratic lawmakers in the House plan to introduce a bill that would establish term limits in the Supreme Court. Though there is a question about the constitutionality of such a plan, and almost assuredly, it will not be taken up by the Senate, it may provide a valuable roadmap for Democrats if they regain the Senate and the White House in 2020. 

This tribute is almost too hard to write. How do I memorialize a woman who, without any personal interaction, has changed the course of my life? In short, that’s what Ruth Bader Ginsburg did – almost all of the liberties, both monotonous and monumental, that underrepresented groups have, they owe to RBG. In her professional life that spanned over 60 years, Ginsburg fought relentlessly for equal rights: she fought for us. 

Her life is marked by a fervent desire to continue learning and fighting for justice. During her husband’s battle with cancer, which was throughout her first year of law school, she did both of their schoolwork so he didn’t fall behind. She raised a child while attending one of the most prestigious schools in the nation, where she later graduated top of her class. She endured nonstop gender discrimination that was both pervasive and normalized so that she could one day help dismantle the very foundations that allowed that discrimination to thrive. The day after her husband died of cancer, she got back to work so she could fight for us. 

Ginsburg is the reason I could even consider attending college. I can have a bank account, my own credit card and a mortgage in my name because of Justice Ginsburg. She helped progress and strengthen equal pay protections for women. It is illegal to fire women because they are pregnant thanks to Ginsburg. Women can serve on juries because of Ginsburg. People can marry whomever they love thanks to Ginsburg. The list goes on and on. 

I think the reason Justice Ginsburg felt, and continues to feel, so dear and close to everyone is because her advocacy, decisions and dissents have influenced every aspect of American life. Everything is different, for the better, because Ginsburg decided to fight until her very last moment to ensure everyone truly had equal protection under the law. 

Grieving Ginsburg feels like grieving a friend – someone who has always been there. She protected the marginalized like a mother, became a role model and example like a grandmother and fought beside us like a sister. 

Grieving Ginsburg brings up a multiplicity of emotions. I feel sad to have lost someone so inspiring and integral to American life. I feel sad that we will no longer be graced by her presence. I feel sad that so much – liberties, stability and the progress of equality – seems to have depended on one woman. I feel angry that upon news of her death I was not immediately able to feel sad but instead afraid for what will happen in her absence. 

But if there’s anything Ginsburg taught people throughout her life, it is that the fight for equality is never over, and no one fights alone. Ginsburg led the fight for us, and it is up to us to finish it. Throughout her remarkable life, Ginsburg truly represented the fight for equality – and that fight will be carried on in her absence. Her constant voice and unwavering support for equality have taught us all what it truly means to be an advocate in all areas of life. She was authentic and strong, and thus able to help us all learn to be the same. Her life and legacy remind us to be vigilant, resilient, relentless and outspoken for the cause of others. 

Ginsburg’s impact and legacy are forever cemented into the history of the U.S. and the memory of people the world over. May her memory be our continued fight, and may we honor her legacy. 

There is a Jewish saying, said upon hearing of one’s death, that has become even more touching and poignant in Ginsburg’s absence: “.ברוך דיין האמת / Baruch dayan ha’emet, ” or “Blessed is the true Judge.”