Sisters in Law: How Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Went to the Supreme Court and Changed the World

This book turned out to offer much greater rewards than I had anticipated. I had thought it was largely a dual biography of Justices O'Connor and Ginsburg. And to be sure, there is a good solid amount of biographical analysis present here. But there is so much more as well. Primarily, the book is also a comprehensive history of the legal fights to achieve women's equality. The author, a law school grad with a Ph.D. as well, is quite well versed in this material. So be advised to expect a good deal of detailed legal analysis that goes along with the biographical material.Much of the early portion of this nearly 400 page book is devoted to Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her pioneering and lonely fight to attack legal discrimination against women beginning around 1970. Ginsburg, who directed the ACLU's Women's Rights Project (initially while teaching at Rutgers Law School; later a Columbia) chose to follow a "careful incremental strategy." Cases were carefully selected in order to develop a doctrinal bridge to the final goal. This is just one of the ways in which Ginsburg resembled Thurgood Marshall's strategy in the civil rights cases. Her ultimate goal was to get the Supreme Court to equate sex discrimination with race discrimination and apply the corresponding strict legal tests when evaluating claims of sexual discrimination. The author discusses the early major cases, including Reed v. Reed, Frontiero v. Richardson, and Kahn v. Shevlin. Interestingly enough, Ginsburg was not happy with the Roe v. Wade decision's reasoning, since she much preferred that it be based on a strict equality argument rather than the new right to privacy.While perhaps an overstatement, to me Ginsburg seems to be the heroine of the book while O'Connor stands somewhat in her shadow. Her background is carefully developed and it contrasts mightily with that of Ginsburg: conservative in upbringing and orientation, happy to spend much time in cooking and supporting her husband's career, her key experience being in the Arizona legislature, and not a militant supporter of women's equality to the extent of Ginsburg, The author does a fine job in recounting how she became the first woman on the Supreme Court thanks to Ronald Reagan. While O'Connor rises to the Supremes, Ginsburg eventually in 1980 is named to the D.C. Circuit, after many exertions by her famous tax lawyer husband, Martin Ginsburg.O'Connor's early years as the first and only woman on the Court are well recounted. She maneuvers around Burger, Blackmun and Rehnquist, and developed her technique of limiting major holdings to the specific facts of the cases, often imposing unclear standards such as "exceedingly persuasive justification" on confused lower court judges. Caution and compromise were her hallmarks. Meanwhile, Ginsburg continues fighting the battle for women's equality from the D.C. Circuit. Eventually, due to departures, O'Connor becomes the critical fifth vote and exploits her virtual control in many cases. When Bill Clinton puts Ginsburg on the Court in 1996, the narrative becomes especially interesting as the author traces the two female justices' early interactions, respective approaches to cases, agreements and disagreements. The discussions of the abortion cases during this period, and the VMI case, are particularly informative. When O'Connor leaves the Court in 2006--the situation clarified by the author--Ginsburg continues on alone until the arrival of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, with a more conservative court due to substitution of Justice Alito for O'Connor.There are many strong points supporting the author's analysis. Her research is exhaustive, including interviews and correspondence, speeches and other published sources. She has made good use of Justice's papers, particularly Blackmun and Powell, to get an insider view of events. In that connection, she highlights the important role of female law clerks in persuading more conservative judges to adopt some of Ginsburg and O'Connor's arguments. This book represents part of a recent trend to focus attention on the life, work and contributions of Justice Ginsburg. See, e.g., Scott Dodson (ed.), "The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg." At age 82, we don't know how long this amazing career will continue because the Justice has rejected calls that she step down so a younger liberal judge can replace her. When I have seen her at the Court, she seemed quite frail--I guess I'm not the first to underestimate the drive and raw intellectual power she brings to bear. More books on her are coming so we can learn even more about this remarkable lawyer and judge. This fine book will be a helpful introduction to both Justices who were so influential and pioneering.

One of the most engaging non-fiction books of the year, Sisters in Law, nominally a comparison of the two first WOTSC, takes a sweeping and provocative look at the changing culture vis a vis women as reflected through the legal system. Over the last fifty years, our society has moved -- not always steadily -- from a position of "protecting" women to a legal system that increasingly endorses equal treatment of all. Hirshman briskly escorts the reader through dozens of cases, beginning with those that Ginsburg tackled during her early years as an advocate for women's rights and ACLU volunteer, culminating with Hobby Lobby. Some of the most seminal and best-known cases, especially Roe v Wade, repeatedly surface; there is an undercurrent of concern that women's reproductive rights will be curtailed, which may surprise those readers who thought that women's right to choose had been assured for the last 40+ years.Looking back from our vantage point of 2015, most women can be grateful that we live and work in a world that doesn't try to protect us from serving on juries, managing the estates of deceased relatives, or competing in schools or jobs once considered too tough for women. Does women's progress reflect the Supreme Court's rulings, or has the nature of the rulings adapted to the changing mores of the general public? Hirshman does not address this question directly, but after reading the book, I see both as contributing factors.This is not truly a biography of either justice, though Hirshman describes the formative years of both. Though she tries to be evenhanded, it is pretty clear that she favors the Notorious RGB's passion, commitment, and laser-like legal focus over O'Connor's comparative wishy-washiness, imprecise language, and occasional abdication of jurisprudential sensibilities as with Bush v Gore. No reader will be surprised that Ginsburg got the t-shirts and the rap song.I had two issues with SIL, neither of them significant enough to subtract even 1/2 star. First, when the author refers back to a case mentioned earlier in the book, it would have been helpful to include a quick reference to the nature of the case to save the reader the trouble of shuffling pages, virtually or otherwise, to remember exactly which case that was. Second, and more troubling to me, was Hirshman's occasional references to living people, including the justices, as if they were long gone. For example, Mechelle Vinson's suit against a former employer was decided in 1986; Hirshman notes that after the case was settled, Vinson "had a long good life." Seems a little premature to make such a judgment about someone who is still alive and in her 50s.Amidst a current crop of books that direct women how to live their lives for maximum success, Sisters in Law is a pointed reminder of the role played by cultural expectations and legal constraints. Though it's hardly chick-lit, it's a must-read for upwardly mobile women of all ages.

Linda Hirshman does a great job dissecting the tactics and patient strategies employed by both Justice O'Connor and Justice Ginsburg in advancing not just the common law, but humanity itself. As a raving fan of both jurists, I was pleased with the detailed portrayal of the efforts each of them made in the field of women's rights. I was also impressed by the honest and respectful way Hirshman describes the missteps that each made at times. All judges and Justices are human beings first. We the people have empowered them to help decide thorny issues because we respect their thinking and their endless quest for justice. Both Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg are larger-than-life figures in 20th-century America. By their statements and advocacy, the US is a stronger and more inclusive place to live.Sisters in Law is written for readers who have significant exposure to the law. I would not have understood many of its points before suffering through a constitutional law class as a 1L. Having practiced law for almost two decades now, I have seen the glacial pace of change and have developed a new respect for the techniques that make the Constitution relevant to modern society. I felt that Linda Hirshman also understands and respects the role that the judicial branch of government fills, and its moderating influence on the politicians filling the other two branches. Good work!

I learned a lot about O'Connor and Ginsberg and their leanings. I was discouraged to see how political the Supreme Court is. Shakes my confidence in the checks and balances of our constitution. While I learned a lot I don't think it was a well written book.

This book tells the stories of Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the first two women to be appointed to the US Supreme Court. Hirshman describes them as the "unambiguous heroines of the modern feminist movement" and provides much fascinating information about their personal lives and how they came to be appointed as Justices, She also offers a detailed assessment of their contribution to the Court's jurisprudence in securing equal rights for women.The tone of the writing in Sisters in Law is rather too sycophantic for my taste, particularly in relation to Justice Ginsburg, and the author seems unable to decide whether she is writing a pot-boiler for popular consumption or engaging in serious legal analysis of the Supreme Court cases in which these two remarkable women have been involved. The writing is too chatty and informal (e.g. 'colleagues' are 'pals', 'chums' or 'buddies'; people are 'brainy' instead of 'clever') for the latter. And Hirshman resorts to too much hyperbole, too many mixed metaphors, and too many (ghastly) colloquialisms.I also began to doubt the author's feminist credentials as she - very, very irritatingly and unnecessarily - so often adds the adjectives 'small', 'tiny', 'diminutive', 'petite', or even 'minuscule', when talking about Justice Ginsburg and, to a lesser extent, 'energetic' and 'robust' in the case of Justice O'Connor.Sisters in Law nonetheless adds significantly to the literature on the politics of the Supreme Court, and Hirshman demonstrates very well just how tough it is for women, even "the two most powerful women in the land", to operate effectively in this environment. Although Justices O'Connor and Ginsburg had very different backgrounds and political leanings, both are extraordinary and inspirational women, and Hirshman is right to describe them as "icons" and "beacons of feminist jurisprudence".

Excellent book and character

Very interesting insight into the way the law has shaped change for women in the US.

I thought it was an excellent book. I t clearly summarized the cases in which the two justices were involved.

Gift