After a week of memorials the beloved Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will join her late husband Marty at Arlington National Cemetery in a private ceremony.
I never got to meet the Notorious RBG. There were plans to visit her chambers and do watercolors of the jabots, but time ran out. My one off-the-bench memory of her is when she stopped by the press room for a chat during which she observed that DC drivers are the worst.
Posted here are some of the better sketches I’ve done of Justice Ginsburg ( there are plenty of lousy ones! ), along with a few SCOTUSblog banners done during the week of remembrance.
Justice Ginsburg with opinions in BNSF Railway Company and Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp.
Brian T. Burgess for petitioner
Justice Ginsburg dissents in American Legion v. American Humanist Assoc.
Justice Ginsburg announces opinion in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill
Justice Alito with opinion in Hernandez v. Mesa
Justice Ginsburg dissents in Hernandez v. Mesa
Jeffrey Wall, Principal Deputy Solicitor General
Justice Ginsburg sporting “dissent” jabot?
In the new term’s first blockbuster the Supreme Court yesterday heard arguments in three cases of LGBTQ employment rights under Title VII.
Other than to observe that Justice Gorsuch seemed to be on the fence, “. . . It’s close, okay? We’re not talking about extra-textual stuff.”. . .
. . . and that Justice Ginsburg sported a bright red collar with matching earrings and scrunchie . . .
. . . I’ll let the sketches speak for themselves. ( Truth is, like walking and chewing gum, I find it difficult to listen and draw at the same time. )
After sketching Justice Ginsburg’s return to the bench on the first day of the Court’s February sitting I wimped out the second day because of a little bit of snow. I’m not nearly as tough as RBG. I’m also way more lazy which is why I’m only now getting it together to lump all the rest of February’s sketches into this one post.
Last week’s argument calendar started off with a First Amendment public-access TV case, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck . . .
On Tuesday an argument on the constitutionality of a sex-offender law, United States v. Haymond . . .
. . . and lunch.
The big argument of a quiet month came on Wednesday in The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, an establishment clause case over a giant cross shaped WWI memorial in Bladensburg, Md, just outside DC.
Also on Wednesday, Justice Kagan had the opinion in a major death penalty case, Madison v. Alabama.
And, as if we needed further proof that RBG is no slouch, Justice Ginsburg on Monday announced her second and third opinions since returning to the bench, one of which was a case that she participated in through the briefs and argument transcript while recuperating from cancer surgery at home.
Appearing strong as ever, Justice Ginsburg returned to the bench yesterday for the first argument of the February sitting. Sitting more upright – she’s usually hunched over and hard to see – Justice Ginsburg asked the very first question during arguments in Returned Mail, Inc. v. USPS. She continued to participate actively; as The Wall Street Journal’s Jess Bravin tweeted, “RBG Electrifies Courtroom with Questions on Estoppel and Issue Preclusion!”
Justice Ginsburg was absent from the bench this week, recovering from recent surgery. She will continue to work from home next week, participating in the cases argued through transcripts and the briefs. Her odds of making a full recovery are good, and I’m looking forward to seeing her back on the bench for the February sitting.
No blockbusters this week. I sketched three of the arguments, one each day. Monday’s focused on whether the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies to law firms acting as “debt collector” in nonjudicial foreclosures; exciting stuff.
Of more interest, at least to this sketch artist, and something I could make into a SCOTUSblog banner was Tuesday’s Indian treaty argument.
Several members of the Crow Tribe were present in the courtroom to for the arguments in Herrera v. Wyoming.
Interesting that Samuel Enemy-Hunter, pictured here in the right background, was allowed to wear tribal head-dress in the courtroom while in November, when Carpenter v. Murphy was argued, court personnel made an official of the Muscogee Creek Nation remove his.
And finally, I had no idea that Wednesday’s argument, Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, was such a big deal but evidently for constitution nerds, whom I admire, this case is their meat and potatoes.