Ruth Bader Ginsburg has left a long-standing legacy behind her in the fields of feminism, equality, and more. Her recent death has caused media speculation and political chaos surrounding possible replacements with slightly less emphasis on who she was and how she made an impact.
Ginsburg was born in 1933 in Brooklyn, New York. She went to Cornell University for her undergraduate degree and followed at Harvard for law school. There, she was one of nine women in a class of 500 men. She soon transferred to Columbia Law School and continued her law career from there. In 1980, Jimmy Carter appointed her to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In 1993, Bill Clinton nominated her to become a Supreme Court Justice where she served as the first Jewish woman and second woman until her death in September 2020.
At the time of nomination, Ginsburg was seen as a moderate judge and was more of a consensus-builder rather than a liberal perspective. Over time, the court shifted further right, pushing Ginsburg towards the left side of the court. Throughout her career as a Supreme Court Justice, she wrote many notable majority opinions and dissents from a liberal stance.
In addition to marking women’s rights history by simply acting on the Supreme Court, Ginsburg assisted in many cases that furthered the idea of gender equality. In 1996’s United States v. Virginia, she wrote the majority opinion against the case in which the Virginia Military Institute didn’t accept female applicants, soon changing the rule and making a mark for gender equality in the military. Ginsburg was also pro-choice and strongly advocated for a woman’s right on abortion, upholding the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.
Ginsburg also wrote majority opinions in cases about climate, specifically Friends of Earth Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, saying that those affected by an industrial polluter could seek fines. In a 1999 case, Olmstead v. L. C., Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion for having mental illness fall under “disabilities” in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, prohibiting discrimination of people with mental illness. Ginsburg spread her views through many different fields of conflict, making clear changes in American policy and ideology.
Ginsburg has debated in fields of criminal justice and racial justice. She was an inconsistent ally towards prisoners, generally siding with her liberal justices. On numerous occasions, she made prison-life slightly more difficult. While Ginsburg recognized the inequality and discrimination of race, she has made comments and court decisions that speak otherwise. For example, she criticized Colin Kapernick for kneeling during the National Anthem, later apologizing for her words.
As time went on, Ginsburg took on a senior role in the Supreme Court, often writing letters of dissent when the liberal wing lost. She held a strong role in America’s court system and she will continue to be recognized as a powerful female who fought for the rights of others.

Amy Coney Barrett was nominated by President Trump to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s spot on the Supreme Court. The Senate Judiciary Committee began hearings for this role Oct. 12, and she could very well become a Supreme Court Justice following the hearings.
Barrett was born in 1972 in New Orleans, Louisiana. She went to law school at Notre Dame and later became a notable law professor there. She was highly acclaimed because of her teaching style, approaching law from the outside and sometimes critiquing it. In opposition, her role as a judge puts her within the system and would apply the law as it exists instead of examining it as an outsider. She currently sits on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, stretching across Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.
In 2018, Barrett was one of three finalists for the spot on the Supreme Court that Brett Kavanaugh currently occupies, so she has been on Trump’s radar for some time now. She didn’t initially receive this role, some say for her intense Catholic views. While her religion is a large part of her life and beliefs, Barrett has stated that religion or other personal convictions have no place in her or any other good judge’s decision making. Still, she is critiqued for having involved her religion in her career.
She hasn’t made many recent bold legal moves because a spotlight has been on her for a while as she has been under consideration for a higher judge position. Barrett would stand on the right wing of the Supreme Court, making it a 6-3 majority for Republicans. She stands for strong Second Amendment gun rights. Last year, she dissented a Seventh Circuit majority not allowing a man with a felony mail fraud to bear arms. Her dissent stated that because a man has a felony, doesn’t make him a dangerous person, especially in the case of mail fraud. She has also written a dissent to the case Cook County v. Wolf which allowed the temporary blocking of a Trump policy that would put green card applicants who apply for public assistance at a disadvantage, stating the policy wasn’t unreasonable.
A common worry surrounding the nomination of Barrett is that she would push for a reverse on Roe v. Wade ruling, which currently rules abortion legal. While she hasn’t made any recent statements confirming this fact, she signed an anti-abortion advertisement in 2006 for an Indiana newspaper. There are also worries that her religious beliefs would be at play in this topic as well.
Barrett’s nomination would shift the Supreme Court to a larger Republican majority, changing a lot within the judiciary system. In addition to anger regarding that, Democrats are stating that because the upcoming election is so close and many states already have voting underway, her nomination wouldn’t be fair this soon. While that may or may not be the case, Barrett could very well replace Ginsburg. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved her nomination Oct. 22, with Democrats refusing to participate in the vote. A full senate vote was expected Oct. 26.