The Barbaric Yawp Project

Discover/Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

1933-2020

In today’s age of highly polarized and factioned silos it is hard to imagine that Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia were close friends for many decades. Their legal positions were polar opposites, but they both held the highest standards for the law and its interpretation. They also had great respect and friendship for one another. Listen to how they might each speak today about our current crisis of politics, culture, and morality based on their finely reasoned, deeply held views of the law and American society.

This video is an AI-generated active imagination of what might be said to us today based on the written historical record.

Dissent from the Grave

I dissent. Not loudly. I never did it loudly. I did it precisely. I did it with citations and precedent and the patient weight of argument. I did it in lace at my collar so that you would know the dissent was formal, considered, and would outlast the majority opinion. I dissent from what you have made of the Constitution. That word. Let it sit. The Constitution. Not a slogan. Not a costume to wear at rallies. Not a cudgel for the already powerful. A document. Argued over, compromised into existence, stained from its first breath by the slave it refused to name as a person while counting him as three-fifths of one. I knew its flaws. I knew them the way a surgeon knows the weakness in a patient’s heart — not to abandon the patient but to repair, carefully, over time, with precision and without illusion. It contained within itself the mechanism of its own correction. That was its genius. That was its promise. That was what I gave my life to. You are dismantling the mechanism. You have done it in robes, from a bench, with the borrowed language of originalism — as though the founders, who were revolutionaries, intended to freeze the republic at the moment of their convenience. As though the Constitution was a relic to be preserved rather than a living argument to be continued. You have done it from a tower with your name on it, declaring yourself beyond accountability, beyond oversight, beyond the reach of the document you swore to defend. And you have done it from your living rooms and your voting booths, looking away, deciding that strongness felt better than law, that clarity felt better than complexity, that one loud voice felt better than the difficult chorus of a republic governing itself. You are all in this together. The robe. The tower. The silence. I know what you have done to it. You have told half the population that the Constitution does not recognize their bodily autonomy. That the 14th Amendment — which I read as the great engine of equal protection, the amendment that finally began to make good on the document’s original bad faith — does not extend to the decision of whether to bear a child. You returned that question to the states — which is to say, you returned women to the mercy of legislatures that have shown them very little. Fifty years. Fifty years of settled law. You dismantled it with a confidence I can only call theological. You were not interpreting the Constitution. You were imposing a catechism. And then — the decision that will outlast all others in its damage — you told us the President is a king in everything but name. Presidential immunity. Let those words register fully. A president who orders a crime in his official capacity is beyond the reach of prosecution. The framers — those men you claim to revere — wrote the Constitution specifically to prevent the rise of such a man. They had just finished fighting one. They knew what unchecked executive power looked like. They built the entire architecture of this document as a defense against it. And you looked at that architecture and handed one man the keys. I sat for thirty years on that bench. I read briefs until midnight. I weighed arguments I personally found repugnant because the law required weighing. I ruled against my preferences when the law demanded it. This is not weakness. This is the entire project. A justice who rules only as she wishes is not a justice. She is a monarch in robes. And a president declared immune from consequence is not a president. He is what the framers built this document to stop. Become the dissent. Not the noise of dissent. Not the performance of resistance. The actual, careful, documented, constitutionally grounded dissent. Read the opinions. Read what was lost in them. Understand that I wrote dissents knowing I had lost — that the majority ruled otherwise — and wrote them anyway because the record must contain the argument. Because history reads the dissents. Because sometimes the dissent becomes the law. It is slower than rage. It is harder than a slogan. It is the only thing that lasts. I dissent. And I remind you: I have been outvoted before. So has justice. It keeps filing briefs.