The liberal journalists at MSNBC used much of an exclusive interview with Supreme Court Justice Rather Bader Ginsburg to fixate on whether the elderly judge will retire and let Barack Obama name her replacement. Anchor Rachel Maddow referred to it as the “awkward question that has lingered over the final two years” of Obama’s presidency.
Maddow reminded, “The oldest serving member of the U.S. Supreme Court right now is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She is 81 years old… All the speculation all of the time now when it comes to Ruth Bader Ginsburg is how much longer does she intend to serve?”
The host again underlined that the judge is “81 years old, somebody who survived a number of health scares, including more than one bout with cancer. It seems like a logical question to ask.” An almost obsessive Maddow informed viewers that the “magic question” of “how much longer do you plan to keep doing this” was asked.
Correspondent Irin Carmon phrased it a different way: “I know that you have no intention of retiring -- correct me if I am wrong -- anytime soon. But I’m wondering what you want your successor to look like?”
Carmon prodded, “A lot of people worry about your health. They want to know, are you cancer-free? How is your health?”
Maddow did insist that Ginsburg is still "at the top of her game." But the totality of the questions indicated deep liberal concern.
Granted, MSNBC is a liberal network. Maddow is a liberal anchor and Carmon is a liberal, pro-abortion journalist. But even assuming these things, the questions were incredibly stilted:
IRIN CARMON: You’ve been a champion of reproductive freedom. How does it feel when you look across the country and you see states passing restrictions that make it inaccessible if not technically illegal?
Ginbsurg referred to decreased access to abortions – and fewer abortions – as a “crying shame.” Carmon offered this open-ended softball: “When you were fighting for women’s rights in the ‘70s, what did you think 2015 would look like? What’s the unfinished business that we have, when it comes to gender equality?”
A partial transcript is below:
Rachel Maddow
2/16/15
RACHEL MADDOW: And one big, sometimes awkward question that has lingered over the final two years of his presidency is whether he’s going to get another pick as well. The oldest serving member of the U.S. Supreme Court right now is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She is 81 years old. She was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993 after a career that included founding the Women’s Rights Project at the ACLU. She was the second woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court after Sandra Day O’Connor. And all the speculation all of the time now when it comes to Ruth Bader Ginsburg is how much longer does she intend to serve?
And when you look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg in that way, right, as 81 years old, somebody who survived a number of health scares, including more than one bout with cancer, it seems like a logical question to ask. But then you hear her speak and then you look at her opinions on the latest cases decided by the court, and you realize that, yes, 81 years of age, but you know what? Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not only still on top of her game, she might be at the height of her game right now. My MSNBC colleague Irin Carmon sat down with Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the Supreme Court, which was itself a feat. Supreme Court justices do not sit for many interviews. And what Irin got from her was a wide-ranging fascinating interview that included that magic question, how much longer do you plan to keep doing this? Watch.
IRIN CARMON: I know that you have no intention of retiring -- correct me if I am wrong -- anytime soon. But I’m wondering what you want your successor to look like?
RUTH BADER GINSBURG: My successor will be the choice of whatever president is sitting at that time. I’m concerned about doing the job full steam. And I said many times, once I sense that I am slipping, I will step down, because this is a very intense job. It is by far the best and hardest job I have ever had. And it takes a lot of energy and staying power to do it right. I will step down when I feel I can no longer do the job full steam.
CARMON: A lot of people worry about your health. They want to know, are you cancer-free? How is your health?
GINSBURG: I had my first cancer bout in 1999. That was colorectal cancer. And it was a challenge. It was massive surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, the whole works. Then I was fine for 10 years, and then in 2009, tiny tumor in my pancreas was detected, very early. And I had surgery for that. So, that’s 2009, and now it is 2015. The most recent episode occurred when I was with my personal trainer. And suddenly, my chest felt so constricted. And I broke out in a sweat. I was overwhelmingly nauseous. So I said, "Well, I stayed up all night last night writing an opinion. So I’m just exhausted. I’ll rest for awhile." I was very stubborn. It was a blocked right coronary artery. As soon as they put this stent in, I was awake during the procedure, groggy, but still awake. As soon as the stent was in place, I was fine. No more constriction in my chest.
CARMON: Other than that, your health --
GINSBURG: Other than that --
CARMON: -- is OK?
GINSBURG: -- it’s fine.
CARMON: When you were fighting for women’s rights in the ‘70s, what did you think 2015 would look like? What’s the unfinished business that we have, when it comes to gender equality?
GINSBURG: Our goal in the ‘70s was to end the closed door era. There were so many things that were off limits to women, policing, firefighting, mining, piloting planes. All those barriers are gone. And the stereotypical view of people of a world divided between home and child caring women and men as breadwinners, men representing the family outside the home, those stereotypes are gone. So we speak of parent -- rather than mother and wage earner rather than male breadwinner. That job was an important first step. What’s left, what’s still with us and harder to deal with is what I call unconscious bias.
CARMON: You’ve been a champion of reproductive freedom. How does it feel when you look across the country and you see states passing restrictions that make it inaccessible if not technically illegal?
GINSBURG: Inaccessible to poor women. It’s not true that it’s inaccessible to women of means. And that’s -- that’s the crying shame. We will never see a day when women of means are not able to get a safe abortion in this country. There are states -- take the worst case. Suppose Roe v. Wade is overruled. There will still be a number of states that will not go back to old ways. Well, now there’s lots of legislative activity, right? And it’s mostly in the direction of shutting down clinics, creating new barriers--
GINSBURG: Yes. But --
CARMON: -- in front of women.
GINSBURG: Who does that -- who does that hurt? It hurts women who lack the means to go someplace else. The situation with abortion right now -- all the restrictions, they operate against the woman who doesn’t have freedom to move, to go where she is able to get safely what she wants.
CARMON: You mentioned if Roe v. Wade is overturned, how close are we to that?
GINSBURG: This court is highly precedent bound. It could happen but I think it’s not a likely scenario. The court has an opportunity to do that some years ago. And they said in an opinion known as Casey that they would not depart from the precedent they had set. They did more than that. They gave a reason, a rationale that was absent in Roe v. Wade itself. Roe v. Wade was as much about a doctor’s right to practice his profession as he sees fit. And the image was the doctor and a little woman standing together. We never saw the woman alone. The Casey decision recognized that this is not as much about a doctor’s right to practice his profession, but about a woman’s right to control her life destiny. I don’t want to make any predictions, but precedent is important in this court.
