Ginsburg Unhinged

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Speaking of Supreme Court justices, while I realize that it’s not Mark Levin’s fault for parroting GOP talking points—they do sound so convincing—this bit is just silly: “Bill Clinton and his Senate friends didn’t accept replacing [retiring Justice] Byron White with another who shared his judicial philosophy [in 1993]. No, they aimed for the fences and hit a homer with Ruth Ginsburg.” Um, right. Ruth Bader Ginsburg—the same Ruth Bader Ginsburg who criticized Roe v. Wade for harming legislative progress on abortion rights—was “aim[ing] for the fences.” The same Ruth Bader Ginsburg, by the way, who has struck down fewer laws than anyone else on the Rehnquist Court, and is hence the least “activist” judge there. Ginsburg was also, mind you, Clinton’s last choice to fill the vacancy (Then-New York Governor Mario Cuomo was his first.) Where do they come up with this stuff? Levin is entitled to be a shill. What he is not entitled to is his own set of facts. I assume that in the coming weeks we’re going to hear a lot about how Bill Clinton nominated a set of unhinged radicals to the Supreme Court, so there’s no sense in Bush restraining himself. It’s charming, but not true.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend