The landscape of American jurisprudence underwent a profound transformation with the appointment and tenure of pioneering women on the United States Supreme Court. Among these trailblazers, few have left as indelible a mark on the nation’s legal consciousness as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose career spanned decades of advocacy for gender equality, civil rights, and constitutional interpretation. Throughout her distinguished service on the nation’s highest court, Ginsburg frequently engaged with questions about the future of the judiciary, the qualities necessary for effective judicial service, and the complex interplay between gender representation and individual merit in leadership positions.
One particularly thought-provoking statement attributed to this influential jurist has sparked considerable discussion among legal scholars, feminists, political commentators, and those interested in the dynamics of institutional succession. The statement in question addresses her preferences regarding potential successors to her Supreme Court seat, specifically mentioning that while she would not want certain women to succeed her, she would welcome someone like David Souter, a former Associate Justice known for his moderate judicial philosophy and commitment to thoughtful legal analysis. This seemingly paradoxical statement from a woman who dedicated her life to advancing women’s rights and opportunities requires careful examination within its proper historical, philosophical, and personal context to fully appreciate its nuances and implications.
To properly contextualize this statement, we must first understand the remarkable trajectory of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s life and career. As the second woman appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, following Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s groundbreaking appointment, Ginsburg occupied a unique position in American legal history. Her journey to the Supreme Court was itself a testament to perseverance in the face of systemic gender discrimination. Despite graduating at the top of her class from Columbia Law School, she faced rejection from numerous law firms simply because of her gender. These early experiences of discrimination would shape her lifelong commitment to dismantling legal barriers that prevented women and other marginalized groups from achieving their full potential.
Before her appointment to the Supreme Court, Ginsburg established herself as a formidable advocate for gender equality through her work with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Women’s Rights Project. In this capacity, she argued numerous cases before the Supreme Court, strategically selecting cases that would demonstrate how gender-based classifications harmed both women and men, thereby building a comprehensive legal framework for challenging sex discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Her methodical, incremental approach to legal change demonstrated her deep understanding of how to effectuate lasting institutional transformation.
Throughout her judicial career, Ginsburg maintained a reputation for meticulous legal reasoning, scholarly rigor, and a commitment to justice that transcended partisan political considerations. Her opinions, both majority and dissenting, reflected a nuanced understanding of constitutional principles and their application to contemporary social issues. She believed deeply in the power of law to create a more just society, but she also understood that the effectiveness of legal institutions depended fundamentally on the character, competence, and philosophical commitments of the individuals who served within them.
The late 20th century, when this particular statement emerged during an interview, represented a pivotal moment in American judicial politics. Discussions about Supreme Court succession had taken on heightened significance as the Court’s composition directly influenced major constitutional questions affecting millions of Americans. Issues such as reproductive rights, affirmative action, criminal justice reform, voting rights, and the scope of federal power all hung in the balance with each potential change in the Court’s membership.
During this period, the nation was grappling with evolving understandings of representation and diversity in leadership positions. The women’s movement had achieved significant legal victories, yet women remained dramatically underrepresented in the highest echelons of government, including the federal judiciary. The Supreme Court, as the most visible and arguably most powerful judicial body in the nation, served as a symbolic and practical focal point for debates about who should hold positions of ultimate legal authority.
Ginsburg herself had become acutely aware of the weight of representation. As one of only a handful of women ever to serve on the Supreme Court, she carried the burden of being viewed not merely as an individual jurist but as a representative of all women in the legal profession. This dynamic created complex pressures: on one hand, her success opened doors for other women and demonstrated female capability in the highest legal roles; on the other hand, it created expectations that she would advocate specifically for women’s interests and support other women’s advancement regardless of other considerations.
The reference to David Souter in Ginsburg’s statement carries particular significance when we examine his judicial record and approach to constitutional interpretation. Souter served as an Associate Justice from 1990 until his retirement in 2009, and his tenure on the Court defied initial expectations in ways that illuminate why Ginsburg might have viewed him as an exemplary model for a successor.
Appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Souter was initially expected to serve as a reliable conservative vote on the Court. However, his actual jurisprudence revealed a more moderate, nuanced approach to constitutional questions. He demonstrated independence from partisan political pressures, carefully reasoned through complex legal issues, and showed a willingness to evolve in his thinking based on legal principles rather than ideological commitments. His opinions reflected deep engagement with constitutional history, precedent, and the practical implications of judicial decisions on ordinary Americans’ lives.
Souter’s approach to judging emphasized judicial restraint, respect for precedent, and careful attention to the specific facts and legal questions presented in each case. He avoided sweeping pronouncements when narrower grounds for decision were available, and he demonstrated humility about the judiciary’s proper role within the constitutional system. These qualities—intellectual rigor, independence, moderation, and institutional respect—represented values that Ginsburg herself championed throughout her career.
By expressing admiration for someone like Souter as a potential successor, Ginsburg was articulating a vision of judicial excellence that transcended demographic characteristics. She was identifying specific qualities of mind, character, and judicial philosophy that she believed essential for effective Supreme Court service. This preference reflected her deep conviction that the Court’s legitimacy and effectiveness depended on justices who approached their responsibilities with integrity, competence, and a genuine commitment to justice rather than partisan political objectives.
The statement attributed to Ginsburg touches on one of the most challenging dilemmas in contemporary discussions about leadership, representation, and equality. How do we balance the legitimate goal of increasing diversity and representation in positions of power with the equally important imperative of selecting the most qualified individuals for those positions? This tension becomes particularly acute when discussing institutions like the Supreme Court, where decisions have profound and lasting impacts on fundamental rights and the structure of American governance.
Ginsburg’s career demonstrated her unwavering commitment to expanding opportunities for women in all fields, particularly in law and the judiciary. She fought tirelessly against systems and practices that excluded or disadvantaged women based on gender stereotypes rather than individual capabilities. Her litigation strategy with the ACLU deliberately highlighted how arbitrary gender classifications harmed society by preventing talented individuals from contributing their skills and perspectives.
However, Ginsburg also recognized that true equality meant evaluating individuals based on their actual qualifications, abilities, and values rather than making assumptions based on demographic categories. She understood that advancing women’s representation in leadership roles would ultimately be counterproductive if it resulted in appointing individuals who lacked the necessary competence or who held views antithetical to gender equality and justice. In other words, representation without regard to qualification could undermine both the institution in question and the broader cause of gender equality.
This nuanced position reflects a sophisticated understanding of how social change occurs and how institutions maintain their effectiveness and legitimacy. Ginsburg believed that women deserved equal opportunities to compete for positions like Supreme Court justice, but she also believed that the selection process should rigorously evaluate candidates’ judicial philosophies, intellectual capabilities, temperaments, and commitments to constitutional principles. She wanted women to succeed based on merit, not merely as tokens of demographic representation.
Over the years since this statement first appeared, legal scholars, political scientists, feminist theorists, and commentators have offered various interpretations of its meaning and significance. Some have praised Ginsburg’s statement as reflecting admirable intellectual honesty and a commitment to principles over identity politics. From this perspective, her willingness to prioritize judicial philosophy and competence over gender representation demonstrates the kind of principled thinking that made her such an effective advocate for equality in the first place.
Other analysts have expressed concern that the statement could be misused to justify continuing male dominance in powerful positions under the guise of meritocracy. They note that historically, claims about “merit” and “qualifications” have often served as pretexts for excluding women and minorities from opportunities. These critics worry that Ginsburg’s statement, particularly when taken out of context, might provide ammunition for those who resist diversity initiatives and affirmative efforts to increase representation of underrepresented groups in leadership positions.
Still other commentators have focused on the specific context of the statement, noting that Ginsburg was likely referring to particular individuals whose judicial philosophies or approaches she found problematic, not making a broad statement about women’s capabilities for Supreme Court service. From this perspective, the statement reflects the simple reality that gender alone does not determine one’s suitability for judicial office—there are both excellent and poor potential candidates of every gender, and responsible succession planning requires evaluating individuals based on their specific qualifications and values.
The statement has also been analyzed within the framework of Ginsburg’s broader judicial philosophy and her approach to gender equality. Throughout her career, she advocated for what might be termed “formal equality”—the principle that law should not make distinctions based on gender except in the most limited circumstances where biological differences make such distinctions necessary. She believed that both women and men benefited from a legal system that evaluated individuals based on their actual characteristics rather than stereotypical assumptions about their gender. Her statement about succession can be understood as an application of this principle to the question of judicial appointments.
The broader context of gender representation on the Supreme Court and in the federal judiciary has evolved significantly since Ginsburg’s appointment and continues to change today. When Sandra Day O’Connor became the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court in 1981, it represented a historic breakthrough after nearly two centuries of exclusively male justices. Ginsburg’s appointment in 1993 as the second woman justice signaled that O’Connor’s presence was not merely a token gesture but potentially the beginning of genuine integration of women into the nation’s highest court.
However, progress toward gender parity on the Court has been gradual and uneven. Following O’Connor and Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor was appointed in 2009, becoming the first Latina justice, and Elena Kagan joined the Court in 2010. Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment in 2020 brought the number of women currently serving on the Court to three out of nine justices. While this represents significant progress from the era when the Court was exclusively male, women remain underrepresented relative to their proportion of the population and their presence in the legal profession.
This gradual increase in female representation on the Court has occurred alongside broader changes in the legal profession. Women now constitute approximately half of law school graduates, a dramatic change from the era when Ginsburg attended law school and faced overt discrimination. Women have also achieved increasing representation in the lower federal courts, state courts, law firm partnerships, and legal academia. These changes have created a larger pool of highly qualified women candidates for Supreme Court appointments.
Yet the question that Ginsburg’s statement implicitly raises remains relevant: How should gender factor into Supreme Court appointments? Should presidents explicitly seek to diversify the Court by appointing women and members of other underrepresented groups? Or should appointments be made based solely on judicial philosophy and qualifications, without regard to demographic characteristics? Most contemporary observers would argue for a middle position: actively seeking out qualified candidates from diverse backgrounds while maintaining rigorous standards for judicial excellence.
The themes raised by Ginsburg’s statement extend far beyond the specific context of Supreme Court succession to encompass broader questions about leadership selection in all fields. Similar debates occur in discussions about corporate board composition, university presidencies, political representation, and leadership in virtually every professional domain. The fundamental tension between representation and merit-based selection appears across these contexts, and thoughtful leaders in various fields have grappled with how to navigate this complexity.
Other prominent women leaders have articulated perspectives that resonate with aspects of Ginsburg’s statement. Angela Merkel, who served as Chancellor of Germany for sixteen years, emphasized throughout her career that she wanted to be evaluated based on her performance and policies rather than her gender. While she acknowledged the symbolic importance of being Germany’s first female chancellor, she consistently maintained that gender should not be the primary lens through which her leadership was assessed. This perspective aligns with Ginsburg’s apparent belief that individual qualifications and values matter more than demographic categories.
Similarly, Madeleine Albright, the first woman to serve as U.S. Secretary of State, famously stated that “there is a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women,” reflecting her commitment to women supporting each other’s advancement. However, Albright also emphasized that such support should be directed toward women who shared progressive values and demonstrated competence, not extended automatically to all women regardless of their qualifications or beliefs. This nuanced position mirrors the complexity evident in Ginsburg’s statement about succession.
These parallel examples from other prominent women leaders suggest that Ginsburg’s perspective was not idiosyncratic but rather reflected a broader understanding among pioneering women in male-dominated fields. These leaders recognized that their success created opportunities for other women, but they also understood that the long-term advancement of gender equality required demonstrating that women could meet and exceed the highest standards of excellence in their fields. Appointing or supporting unqualified women simply for the sake of representation could ultimately undermine the cause of gender equality by reinforcing stereotypes about women’s capabilities.
As with many statements attributed to famous figures, questions arise about the precise wording, context, and even authenticity of this particular quote. Famous individuals’ words are often paraphrased, condensed, or slightly altered as they circulate through various media and conversations. These variations can sometimes change the statement’s meaning or emphasis in subtle but significant ways.
Some versions of this quote that have circulated omit portions of the statement or present it without adequate context, potentially altering its intended meaning. For instance, versions that emphasize only the first part about not wanting certain women to succeed her, without including the reference to David Souter or the broader context of her views on judicial philosophy, could create a misleading impression that Ginsburg opposed women’s advancement to the Supreme Court. Such decontextualized versions could be weaponized by those seeking to argue against diversity initiatives or to portray Ginsburg as inconsistent in her commitment to gender equality.
Conversely, some discussions of the quote have added interpretive glosses or additional context that may not have been part of Ginsburg’s original statement. While such additions might be intended to clarify or explain her meaning, they can also introduce elements that reflect the commentator’s own views rather than Ginsburg’s actual position.
Ensuring accuracy in how we represent and discuss Ginsburg’s words matters both as a matter of historical integrity and because of the ongoing relevance of these debates. Ginsburg’s legacy as a champion of gender equality and judicial excellence deserves to be preserved accurately, which requires careful attention to what she actually said and the context in which she said it. Misattributions or significant alterations of her statements can distort our understanding of her views and undermine the nuanced positions she actually held.
This statement attributed to Ruth Bader Ginsburg has had a lasting impact on how legal scholars, political commentators, and the general public discuss judicial appointments and the role of diversity considerations in selecting judges. It has been cited in numerous articles, books, and discussions about Supreme Court nominations, often serving as a touchstone for debates about how to balance representation with other selection criteria.
In the context of specific Supreme Court nomination battles, the quote has been invoked by various parties to support different positions. Some have used it to argue that presidents should prioritize judicial philosophy and qualifications over demographic considerations when selecting nominees. Others have cited it to suggest that even strong advocates for gender equality recognize that not all women are equally qualified or philosophically aligned with progressive values, and therefore that opposition to a particular female nominee should not be characterized as opposition to women’s advancement.
The statement has also influenced discussions about the criteria that should guide Supreme Court appointments more broadly. It has contributed to conversations about whether presidents should explicitly commit to appointing justices from particular demographic groups, as some recent presidents have done, or whether such commitments risk prioritizing representation over other important considerations. These debates reflect ongoing tensions in American political culture about the role of identity in politics and governance.
Beyond the specific context of Supreme Court appointments, the quote has resonated in discussions about leadership succession in other contexts. Organizations grappling with how to increase diversity in their leadership ranks while maintaining high standards of competence have sometimes referenced Ginsburg’s perspective as they navigate these complex considerations. The statement serves as a reminder that true equality involves creating systems where individuals are evaluated based on their actual qualifications and values rather than assumptions based on demographic categories.
To fully understand the significance of this statement about succession, we must situate it within Ginsburg’s broader philosophy of equality and justice, which she developed and articulated over decades of legal scholarship, advocacy, and judicial service. Her approach to equality was characterized by several key principles that remained consistent throughout her career.
First, Ginsburg believed fundamentally in the equal dignity and worth of all individuals regardless of gender or other demographic characteristics. This conviction drove her opposition to laws and practices that treated people differently based on categorical assumptions rather than individual circumstances. She saw such differential treatment as insulting to human dignity and harmful to society’s ability to benefit from all individuals’ talents and contributions.
Second, she understood equality as requiring equal opportunity rather than guaranteed equal outcomes. She fought to dismantle barriers that prevented women and others from competing fairly for positions and opportunities, but she did not advocate for systems that would guarantee particular results regardless of individual qualifications. Her vision was of a society where everyone had a fair chance to succeed based on their abilities and efforts.
Third, Ginsburg recognized that achieving genuine equality often required active efforts to counteract the effects of historical discrimination and ongoing bias. She supported affirmative measures to expand opportunities for those who had been systematically excluded, while also maintaining that such measures should be temporary remedies designed to create truly equal playing fields rather than permanent systems of preferential treatment.
Fourth, she believed that equality benefited everyone, not just members of historically disadvantaged groups. Her litigation strategy deliberately included cases where gender-based classifications harmed men, demonstrating that rigid gender roles and stereotypes constrained everyone’s freedom and potential. This expansive understanding of equality’s benefits reflected her belief that justice served the common good rather than merely redistributing advantages among competing groups.
Finally, Ginsburg maintained that achieving equality required changing both formal legal rules and informal social attitudes and practices. She understood that legal victories alone could not transform society if underlying prejudices and stereotypes remained unchallenged. This insight informed her approach to judicial opinions, public speaking, and her role as a cultural icon—she sought to use all available platforms to advance both legal equality and social understanding.
In today’s social and political environment, the themes raised by Ginsburg’s statement about succession remain profoundly relevant. Contemporary debates about diversity, equity, and inclusion in various institutional contexts continue to grapple with the same fundamental tensions between representation and merit-based selection that her statement highlights.
Current discussions about Supreme Court composition frequently reference the importance of having justices whose backgrounds and experiences reflect America’s diversity. Advocates for increased diversity argue that justices from different backgrounds bring varied perspectives that enrich the Court’s deliberations and help ensure that the law addresses the full range of American experiences. This perspective suggests that diversity itself constitutes a form of qualification, as it contributes to the Court’s collective wisdom and legitimacy.
At the same time, debates about specific Supreme Court nominees continue to raise questions about how to evaluate candidates’ qualifications and whether opposition to particular nominees reflects legitimate concerns about judicial philosophy or impermissible bias based on demographic characteristics. Ginsburg’s statement serves as a reminder that it is possible to simultaneously support increased diversity and maintain rigorous standards for individual qualifications and philosophical alignment.
Beyond the judiciary, organizations across sectors are implementing diversity initiatives designed to increase representation of women and members of other underrepresented groups in leadership positions. These efforts often encounter the same challenges that Ginsburg’s statement implicitly addresses: how to expand opportunity while maintaining excellence, how to counteract historical discrimination without creating new forms of unfairness, and how to evaluate individual candidates in ways that account for both their unique qualifications and the broader context of representation and inclusion.
The statement also remains relevant to ongoing discussions about feminism and women’s political solidarity. Some contemporary feminists argue for a form of gender solidarity that involves supporting women candidates and leaders regardless of their specific policy positions or qualifications. Others contend that such automatic support based on gender alone contradicts feminist principles of evaluating individuals based on their actual characteristics rather than categorical assumptions. Ginsburg’s statement can be read as supporting this latter position—that true gender equality involves the freedom to evaluate and critique individual women based on their specific qualifications and values rather than feeling obligated to support all women simply because of shared gender identity.
The statement attributed to Ruth Bader Ginsburg regarding her preferences for a successor encapsulates the principled complexity that characterized her approach to questions of equality, justice, and leadership throughout her distinguished career. Rather than offering simple answers or reducing complex questions to slogans, she consistently grappled with the genuine tensions and trade-offs involved in pursuing justice in an imperfect world.
Her apparent willingness to prioritize judicial philosophy and individual qualifications over gender representation in considering potential successors reflects her deep commitment to both gender equality and institutional excellence. She understood that these goals were not contradictory but rather mutually reinforcing when properly understood. True equality meant creating conditions where women could compete fairly for positions based on their actual abilities, not where they received appointments merely as tokens of demographic representation.
At the same time, her life’s work demonstrated her unwavering commitment to expanding opportunities for women and dismantling systems of discrimination. She never wavered in her belief that women deserved equal access to all positions and opportunities, including seats on the Supreme Court. Her statement about succession does not contradict this commitment but rather reflects her understanding that achieving lasting equality required maintaining high standards and selecting leaders based on their capacity to advance justice.
As we continue to grapple with questions about diversity, representation, and merit in leadership selection across various domains, Ginsburg’s perspective offers valuable insights. She reminds us that these questions admit of no simple answers and that thoughtful people committed to equality may reach different conclusions about how best to balance competing considerations. Her legacy challenges us to think deeply about what equality truly requires and how we can create institutions that are both diverse and excellent, representative and effective, inclusive and rigorous.
The ongoing relevance of this statement and the discussions it generates testifies to the enduring importance of the questions Ginsburg raised throughout her career. As society continues evolving in its understanding of equality, representation, and leadership, her words and example continue to inspire, challenge, and guide those committed to creating a more just world. Her principled approach to these complex questions—refusing easy answers while maintaining unwavering commitment to core values—represents a model of thoughtful leadership that remains as vital today as when she first articulated these views.
Explore More About Ruth Bader Ginsburg
If you found this quote inspiring, you might enjoy these products related to Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
- The Unemployed Philosophers Guild Ruth Bader Ginsburg Doll – 12″ Soft Stuffed Plush Little Thinker – $24.95
- Bleacher Creatures Ruth Bader Ginsburg 10″ Plush Figure- The RBG Icon for Play or Display – $24.99
- The Unemployed Philosophers Guild Ruth Bader Ginsburg Magnetic Personality – Plush Finger Puppet and Refrigerator Magnet, Approx 4″ Tall – $9.95
- Feminist Wood Plaque Gift, Women Belong In All Places Where Decisions Are Being Made, Plaque with Wooden Stand, Wood Sign Plaque Gift, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, RBG Woman’s Rights B1 – $7.99
- Feminist Wood Plaque Gift – RBG Woman’s Rights, Wood Sign Gift with Stand – $9.99
As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.