Ginsburg’s Message to Georgetown Law 1Ls
For my first post, and in light of tonight’s sure-to-be absurd debate, I thought I’d share some thoughts I had during my first week of law school.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “the Notorious RBG,” addressed the first year class at Georgetown Law with a prepared speech in which she only described her own career and accomplishments in passing. The primary focus of the address was instead to chronicle her relationship with the recently deceased justice, Antonin Scalia. Justice Ginsburg nostalgically recalled their mutual interest in the opera, and their numerous exchanges of birthday and anniversary presents over the decades. Her voice broke when she exalted his remarkable wit, and she smiled broadly when reminiscing on a few of his “peppery” dissents. I am sure I was not alone in being moved by their quirky cat-and-dog, conservative-and-liberal camaraderie.
In her closing, Justice Ginsburg emphasized the importance of their friendship by quoting a recent musical dedicated to that same subject: “We are different. We are one.” Through their unique yin-and-yang rapport, she and Justice Scalia strengthened each other’s arguments and harmoniously expanded the grandeur of the legal profession. Justice Ginsburg’s implication was that there is wisdom to be found by searching out others to challenge our opinions. While I absolutely agree with that sentiment, in light of the current political scene, it must be pointed out that her message goes deeper.
Recent psychological research suggests that our moral positions are determined by our unique instinctual reactions. Dr. Jonathan Haidt of NYU believes that our moralities are made up of a certain psychological “foundations” that developed through the evolution of the human race. These moral foundations then spill directly over into our politics, and our interpretations of the law. We feel first, and then we reason to justify our feelings. Liberals feel like liberals, and conservatives feel like conservatives.
Such an understanding of our psychology has important ramifications, and anyone who has recently entered into a debate on politics can relate. Has it ever seemed like, no matter how many rational arguments you pile on, there is just no getting through to that guy on the other side of the isle? By Dr. Haidt’s approximation, rational argument is often a fruitless endeavor in our emotional world.
Somewhere here, I think, is the larger point Justice Ginsburg wanted to leave us with. Justices Ginsburg and Scalia were champions of separate judicial philosophies; Scalia was a strict textualist when looking at statutes and the Constitution, while Ginsburg’s reading was far more flexible. Over the decades, and with each other’s help, they were able to fine-tune their points of view, building intimidating fortresses of rational argument.
While this approach might be appropriate for giants of the legal world, it may not apply usefully to those of us with more casual intellects. We need each other, but not for constant intellectual battles. Instead of sharpening our own swords of “reason,” perhaps it is time to start critiquing how much armor we wear.
To use a cliche (that may or may not even be true): American politics seem to be more divided — and more emotional — than ever before. The public arena is, and should remain, a space for our ideas to compete. But while the reasoning behind those ideas can be built up and torn down, the emotional bedrock remains. Unlike law, which which is at least partially tied down to a specific reality, politics can provide dangerous leeway in what we choose to regard as “truth” and “fact.”
Media coverage of Justice Ginsburg’s address focused solely on the political issues she touched on during the question-and-answer segment, like her take on the controversial Supreme Court nomination, and not on her underlying lesson:
The real beauty in the Ginsburg-Scalia friendship cannot be found found in their impregnable judicial opinions, but rather, in its inherent respect and humility.
During the debate tonight, be sure to remember why it is you can’t make sense of the presidential candidate you aren’t going to vote for; remember that it says as much about you as it does the candidate.
