I

’m sure you’ve all heard by 
now, but the long-seated 
Supreme 
Court 
Justice 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg died. She 
passed away on Sept. 18 and 
immediately reinvigorated a 
partisan conflict that’s been 
brewing for the past four years. 
Her body hadn’t even been 
cold, and people were already 
in an uproar about what the 
proceeding 
replacement 

would look like. Sentiments 
over former President Barack 
Obama’s 
appointee, 
Justice 

Merrick Garland, come to mind 
as the Republicans seek to fill 
the vacancy in the weeks before 
the election. I don’t really want 
to talk about that, though. 
I never expected Sen. Mitt 
Romney, R-Utah, to actually 
have any decency and follow 
through 
with 
his 
dissent, 

anyway. Politics is a game, after 
all, and the rest is just for show. 

I want to talk about what 

RBG means to many people. 
Her influence in American 
politics cannot be understated 
— a champion of women’s 
rights. I won’t try and take that 
away from her. But there are 
many instances where RBG has 
ruled in a fashion many would 
say to be, well, problematic. 
Her history isn’t clean. I’m not 
trying to urinate on the fresh 
grave of such a prolific figure. 
She’s not Margaret Thatcher, 
after all. I take contention 
with the unquestioning faith in 
the most iconic figures of the 
American left. Being unable to 
criticize 
such 
consequential 

figures is something I take 
contention with. Let’s take a 
holistic look at Ginsburg, her 
legacy and what it all means to 
me and many other people.

I’ll start with the good. It’s 

irrefutable she’s had a positive 
impact on women’s rights in 
this country. Ginsburg was 
one of nine women at Harvard 
Law when she enrolled in 1956, 
later transferring to Columbia 
to graduate in 1959. She was 
undoubtedly a trailblazer in 
this right and helped paved 
the way for many other women 
to follow suit. Soon after, 
RBG 
volunteered 
with 
the 

American Civil Liberties Union 
and co-founded the Women’s 
Rights Project which started 
her career as a champion of 
gender equality right out of 
the gate. The Women’s Rights 
Project went on to challenge 

bias in government, including 
things like treatment of men 
and women in the military 
and unequal treatment in state 
jurisdictions. 

On 
the 
bench 
in 
the 

Supreme Court, she ruled in 
favor of the rights of disabled 
Americans, arguing for the 
rights of two neurodivergent 
women that had been trapped 
in a psychiatric ward without 
their consent. Even in the 
dissenting opinion, RBG made 
her perspectives known and 
her stance clear. In 2007, the 
case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear 
Tire & Rubber Co. reiterated 
the rights of corporations to 
pay 
their 
workers 
unequal 

wages in equal positions. RBG 
wrote 
the 
dissent, 
reading 

on the bench (an uncommon 
practice) about her objections 
to the ruling and her aversion 
to the obvious sexism within it. 
“In our view, the court does not 
comprehend, or is indifferent 
to, the insidious way in which 
women can be victims of pay 
discrimination,” 
Ginsberg 

said in her dissenting opinion. 
Ginsburg’s 
fight 
for 
equal 

rights cannot be understated.

But with such a long and 

expansive 
career, 
there 
is 

always going to be some bad. 
RBG has had some speed 
bumps, and it would be foolish 
to completely ignore them. 
Many 
critics 
that 
actually 

have something to say, rather 
than vapid political squabbles, 
mention her record on things 
like criminal justice and tribal 
law. Her record has been 
less than consistent when it 
comes to the rights of felons. 
In Overton v. Bazezza (2003), 
she ruled in favor of a decision 
that upheld a Michigan prison’s 
right to bar visitation to those 
with instances of substance 
abuse. In Porter v. Nussle, she 
authored the majority opinion 
which determined “No action 
shall be brought with respect 
to prison conditions … until 
such administrative remedies 
as are available are exhausted” 
before trying to file for abuse in 
court. Doesn’t help much when 
the prison system is already 
labyrinthian and notoriously 
terrible in terms of prisoner 
rights and guard accountability. 

Another point of contention 

that 
many 
people 
like 

myself have with her is her 
controversial rulings regarding 

treaty rights and the rights 
of Indigenous peoples. City 
of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian 
Nation of New York (2005) is 
a sore thumb that sticks out 
in this regard. The Oneida 
Nation 
repurchased 
lands 

privately that were once part of 
their reservation and claimed 
sovereignty 
over 
the 
land 

following the purchase. RBG 
wrote the majority opinion 
that dismissed their claims. 
In addition to that, there’s 
United States v. Navajo Nation, 
(2003) 
where 
RBG 
struck 

down a whopping $600 million 
compensation 
following 
a 

breach of contract against the 
Navajo Nation. 

Don’t think I’m trying to play 

to the whim of the people who 
drag Ginsburg down for the 
hell of it, for political gain. I 
appreciate and understand the 
strides she’s made for gender 
equality 
across 
the 
board. 

However, I have objections 
to idolatry: RBG has been 
glorified as someone worthy 
of unequivocal praise and not 
worth examining further. I 
don’t think that’s helpful. I 
don’t think the answer to the 
conniving and slimy politicians 
that seek to engage in hypocrisy 
with an appointment so soon 
after Ginsburg’s death is to 
deify her. 

A problem I have with the 

American left is their eagerness 
to ignore their own flaws. 
In order to be stronger, and 
to accept nothing but what’s 
right, we need to be able to 
acknowledge the flaws in our 
most lauded figures. Ginsburg 
had her faults, and as people 
who strive for a better world we 
need to be able to recognize that 
and work toward something 
better, for something more 
satisfactory. I’m tired of this 
banal level of acceptance from 
our rulers in this country. 
Women achieving success is 
always cool, but the “#girlboss” 
attitude of ignoring injustice 
in favor of symbolic victory is 
nearly just as harmful as flat 
out ignoring our problems. 
Ginsburg did so much good, 
but she was by no means the 
end of what we should ask from 
justices. Never accept anything 
less than justice. It’s in the 
position’s title, right?

T

he COVID-19 pandemic 
has presented a unique and 
unprecedented 
challenge 

for economies across the globe as 
world leaders balance safeguarding 
public 
health 
with 
protecting 

workers and industries. Here in the 
United States, as we continue to 
respond to the ongoing threat posed 
by the coronavirus, our nation has 
suffered staggering economic losses. 
According to the Bureau of Economic 
Analysis, the U.S. economy shrank 
at an alarming annual rate of 32.9 
percent in the second quarter of 
2020 alone, setting a record for the 
steepest drop in history. 

While the coronavirus crisis 

has had widespread impacts on the 
entire U.S. economy, it has had an 
especially destructive impact on 
workers and jobs. Since COVID-19 
first prompted economic shutdowns 
in March, tens of millions of U.S. 
workers have sought unemployment 
aid for the first time. At the 

beginning of September, the U.S. 

Labor Department reported that 
almost 900,000 workers filed initial 
claims for unemployment benefits in 
one week alone. On the other hand, 
though the unemployment rate has 
recovered somewhat since it hit nearly 
15% in April, the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics’ recent August jobs report 
signals that millions of workers still 
find themselves struggling due to the 
pandemic’s impact.

As a result of this staggering 

economic 
carnage, 
Congress 

and 
the 
federal 
government 

have implemented a number of 
expansionary measures that aim to 
prop up our damaged economy. Once 
businesses were forced to close as 
states shut down in March, Congress 
worked quickly to deliver aid to 
struggling Americans. In late March, 
President Donald Trump signed 
the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and 
Economic Security Act into law after 
Congress passed it with bipartisan 
support. 

The unprecedented CARES Act 

— which cost the federal government 
more than $2 trillion in total — served 
as a multi-pronged approach to help 
those affected by the pandemic. Soon 
after this act was signed into law, each 
American citizen with income less 
than $75,000 (or $150,000 for those 
filing jointly) received a generous 
$1,200 stimulus check along with 
an additional $500 for each child 
under 17 years old in the household. 
Meanwhile, the CARES Act led to 
the implementation of the Paycheck 
Protection Program, a beneficial 
effort that provided small businesses 
financial support to help them survive 
this crisis. Finally, in addition to 
stimulus checks and support for small 
businesses as part of the CARES Act, 
the federal government also provided 
enhanced unemployment benefits of 
$600 per week, which unemployed 
American 
citizens 
received 
in 

addition to state aid.

The CARES Act was truly a 

remarkable 
effort 
that 
quickly 

distributed 
benefits 
across 
the 

nation in a time of distress and 
severe economic instability. But in 
retrospect, the Act was far from 
perfect. Though the CARES Act 
was successful in many ways, our 
lawmakers designed this legislation 
more broadly in order to distribute 
this crucial economic aid as quickly 
as possible. The broad targeting of 
this stimulus plan led to obvious 
waste and inefficiency. In terms 
of the stimulus checks, our federal 
government distributed benefits to 
all Americans under a certain level of 
income, even if some of these people 
never lost their jobs. Meanwhile, it 
is highly evident that the PPP was 
misused and taken advantage of by 
a large number of businesses, with 
the Wall Street Journal reporting 
that “the program’s $521 billion in 
loans ... went to well-heeled and 
politically connected firms across 
the economy, including law offices, 
charities, restaurant chains and 

wealth managers.” 

At the time the original CARES 

Act was passed in March, it seemed 
hard to imagine that further stimulus 
efforts might be necessary. Six months 
later, however, while our government 
has already spent trillions of dollars 
and helped millions of Americans, the 
coronavirus pandemic shows no signs 
of letting up anytime soon, with our 
country’s top health experts warning 
that the COVID-19 crisis is far from 
over. The ongoing threat posed by 
the pandemic has therefore reignited 
debates over further stimulus efforts, 
though the negotiations in Congress 
have appeared to stall for the time 
being.

It’s painfully obvious at this point 

that the coronavirus will continue 
to threaten the American economy 
until an effective therapeutic or 
vaccine is made available to the public. 
Until then, it is incumbent on our 
lawmakers and government officials 
to 
implement 
further 
stimulus 

measures that fight the economic 
impacts of COVID-19. However, while 
future stimulus bills are necessary, we 
must learn from the shortcomings 
of the CARES Act and make new 
stimulus money more narrowly 
targeted to those affected most. 
Unlike in March, we have the tools 
today to better understand who is 
most impacted by COVID-19 and the 
time to actually implement a strategy 
that is more narrowly targeted. 

A more narrow strategy to uplift 

struggling Americans would not only 
be a more efficient plan but would be 
a smarter plan. Instead of wastefully 
trying to distribute benefits to every 
American, as was the case with the 
CARES Act, narrow targeting of 
stimulus benefits would enable us to 
focus on those who need help most.

9 — Wednesday, September 30, 2020
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com

Now, we must all find a way to be notorious

JESS D’AGOSTINO | COLUMN

A slightly more holistic look at R.B.G.

SAM FOGEL | COLUMNIST

Evan Stern can be reached at 

erstern@umich.edu.

Future stimulus efforts must be more 

narrowly targeted 

EVAN STERN | COLUMNIST

A

t 87 years old, Justice 
Ruth Bader Ginsburg lost 
her battle to cancer. As I 

type the word “battle,” it could 
not feel more appropriate, as 
Ginsburg truly was a warrior who 
fought far beyond the physical 
obstacles of cancer. We must 
now all find this warrior within 
us, for R.B.G. and everything she 
represented. I personally plan to 
wear an invisible collar, bun and 
glasses as my sword, shield and 
compass for the rest of my life. 

For millions of people across 

the world, Ginsburg’s death 
provoked many tears, anxieties 
and a collective call to action. 
The moment my phone vibrated 
and I read the headline: “Justice 
Ruth Bader Ginsburg dead at 
87,” I was overwhelmed with 
emotion. First and foremost, 
I felt a deep sadness. As for 
many women, R.B.G. has been a 
lifelong role model for me. As a 
Jewish woman myself, Ginsburg 
has shown me how to shatter the 
glass ceiling I’ve been reminded 
of far too many times. Separate 
from 
any 
political 
ideology, 

Ginsburg should be remembered 
as a trailblazing force of nature. 

Whether you are politically 

aligned with R.B.G. or not holds 
no relevance; she was and is a true 
embodiment of what the Supreme 
Court should be, representative 
of the trust and passion we 
all yearn to see from our 
government officials. Ginsburg 
fought 
for 
and 
represented 

equality. 
Candid 
about 
the 

challenges she faced, Ginsburg 
provides 
encouragement 
to 

women everywhere: “I struck 

out on three grounds — I 

was Jewish, a woman and a 
mother.” 
Nonetheless, 
her 

accomplishments extend beyond 
the word limits of my column. To 
detail 87 years of her dedication, 
determination and dissent on 

one page would be impossible in 
trying to fully encapsulate the 
unbelievable contribution she 
has made to our country. 

Having 
said 
that, 
a 
few 

highlights 
should 
still 
be 

recognized. Ginsburg was a 
Jewish woman from Brooklyn, 
N.Y. Beyond graduating first 
in her mostly-male Columbia 
Law School class, she was the 
second female law professor at 
Rutgers University, a co-founder 
of the American Civil Liberties 
Union Women’s Rights Project, 
the second woman appointed 
to the Supreme Court, the 
first Supreme Court justice to 
officiate a same-sex marriage 
and a champion of equality for 
all: women, Black Americans, the 
Jewish community, the LGBTQ+ 
community, working mothers 
and, genuinely, so many more. 

Though I would argue that 

we would have never been ready 
for Ginsburg to leave us, it goes 
without saying that her passing 
comes at a scary time in history. 
As the pandemic continues on 
and the election looms closer, I 
couldn’t help but wonder just a 
few moments after the tears had 
stopped: What does this mean 
for the United States? Depending 
on your perspective, the world 
is either upside down or just 
starting to turn right side up. 
Regardless, it is essential that 
the memory, legacy and work of 
Ginsburg is not undone by her 
replacement on the Supreme 
Court. 

Before 
her 
death, 
Justice 

Ginsburg 
relayed 
her 
final 

demand to her granddaughter, 
Clara Spera: “My most fervent 
wish is that I will not be 
replaced until a new president 
is installed.” On Sept. 22, just 
four days after R.B.G’s passing, 
President Donald Trump said he 
will announce his nomination 

for the Supreme Court Justice on 
Saturday, Sept. 26. It goes without 
saying that this announcement 
has incited a lot of backlash; like 
seemingly everything in this day 
and age, there has been a divisive 
split between those who believe 
the president should nominate a 
lame-duck replacement in what 
could be the final months of his 
presidency and those who do not. 

When a woman who did 

so much for our country and 
asked for nothing in return 
has a final wish, you obey that 
wish. Think past the politics of 
a judicial majority — dig down 
to the most human, empathetic 
part of yourself. The justice that 
replaces Ginsburg must be one 
equipped to carry her torch. 
R.B.G. is indisputably one-of-
a-kind and nobody will ever be 
as “notorious.” However, this 
replacement should be similar to 
Ginsburg in more ways than just 
her gender. 

Feeling hopeless and helpless 

is natural in the wake of this 
monumental loss. I encourage 
every woman to do the following, 
no matter who you’re voting 
for this November. Think of 
Ginsburg as you sign your own 
mortgage or open your own bank 
account. Feel her with you every 
day you work as a woman, and 
even more so if you are pregnant 
or a mother. Support local 
women running for elections. 
Volunteer 
in 
mentorship 

programs for young girls, or get 
involved in your community 
through whatever avenue you 
are passionate about. 

Supreme Court Justice Ruth 

Bader Ginsburg may be gone, 
but it is now our responsibility to 
continue the ferocious, unrelenting 
spirit of the Notorious R.B.G.

Jess D’Agostino can be reached at 

jessdag@umich.edu.

Sam Fogel can be reached at 

samfogel@umich.edu.

ZOE ZHANG | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT ZOEZHANG@UMICH.EDU

Design courtesy of Mehana Tummala 

Read more at MichiganDaily.com

