Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Of the 200 statues at the U.S. Capitol, 14 are of women; RBG and Sandra Day O’Connor will soon join the ranks

Of the 200 statues at the U.S. Capitol, 14 are of women; RBG and Sandra Day O’Connor will soon join the ranks

Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg pose for a portrait in the Capitol's Statuary Hall in 2001, surrounded by statues of men.

David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images

Originally published by The 19th.

Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg — the first women to sit on the highest court in the country — are joining the relatively short list of women memorialized as sculptures at the U.S. Capitol. Bipartisan legislation to add statues of the two Supreme Court justices to the Capitol was spearheaded by women lawmakers, passed the Senate last December, passed the House at the end of March and signed by President Joe Biden on Wednesday.


“Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor were trailblazers long before reaching the Supreme Court, opening doors for women at a time when so many insisted on keeping them closed,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, a Democrat who introduced the legislation, told The 19th, after the bill was signed. “The Capitol is our most recognizable symbol of democracy, a place where people from across our country have their voices represented and heard. It is only fitting that we honor their remarkable lives and service to our country by establishing statues in the Capitol.”

Klobuchar said she was able to pass the news on to O’Connor’s son and Ginsburg’s daughter and looks forward to “welcoming them to the Capitol” to see their mothers’ lives commemorated. As it stands, only 14 of the more than 200 statues on the Capitol grounds are women, she added.

Born three years apart, O’Connor in 1930 and Ginsburg in 1933, the two women grew up on different sides of the country but went on to serve together on the Supreme Court for more than a decade. While the former was a lifelong Republican raised on a ranch in Arizona and the latter a liberal Democrat born and raised in Brooklyn, by the end of the 1950s, both women had earned law degrees from prestigious schools, ahead of the second-wave feminism movement that later swept the nation. O’Connor enrolled at Stanford University when she was only 16 and graduated six years later with an economics degree and a law degree. Ginsburg attended Cornell University, Harvard Law School and Columbia Law School, where she graduated first in her class.

More from The 19th

Rep. Lois Frankel of Florida, co-chair of the Democratic women’s caucus, said Ginsburg and O’Connor do not deserve this honor “just because they’re women … The fact that they are the first two women to get to the Supreme Court is so significant because of what they had to do to get there.”

Early in her career, O’Connor was unable to find work as an attorney and ended up working in the San Mateo County District Attorney’s office in an unpaid position. She later served as an assistant attorney general for Arizona, a state senator and a trial court judge in the Arizona Court of Appeals. Ginsburg also struggled to find a law firm job after law school despite graduating top of her class. She went on to teach at Rutgers University Law School and later became the first woman tenured professor at her alma mater, Columbia Law School. She went on to serve as the director of the Women’s Rights Project of the ACLU, where she successfully argued six gender discrimination landmark cases before the Supreme Court, and later served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

In her 2015 dual biography of the two women, Linda Hirshman described O’Connor and Ginsburg not as “soul sisters” but as “sisters in law.” Despite their differences, the two often found common ground when it came to advocating for women’s rights.

“Their presence in our Capitol is a reminder that a woman’s place is everywhere, something a Republican President saw in 1981 and a Democrat President saw in 1993,” bipartisan women’s caucus leadership said in a statement. “And we owe both Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg a huge debt of gratitude.”

The last statue of a woman to find a permanent place in the Capitol building was Rosa Parks in 2013.

O’Connor would be the first person to have a statue built and placed in the Capitol in her honor in her lifetime. The Joint Committee of Congress on the Library will decide where the statues are placed, prioritizing areas near the Old Supreme Court Chamber. The cost of each cannot exceed $500,000, according to the legislation text. Frankel said the committee has two years to obtain the statues, in an artist selection process that includes candidates from underrepresented demographic groups.

The art collection in the Capitol — which includes 162 sculptures, some of which include multiple figures, according to the Architect of the Capitol — has sparked controversy in recent years. In 2020, the House voted 305 to 113 to pass legislation removing statues of Confederate figures and leaders from the building. The dissenters, all Republicans, argued that states should retain the right to decide which statues to contribute to the National Statuary Hall. The bill failed to receive enough Republican support in the Senate and some of the contested statues remain, including known slavery defenders and segregationists. Some states decided on their own accord to replace their contributions to Statuary Hall, which contains 100 statues, two from each state. Mississippi, for example, opted to remove the statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee and replace it with one of Barbara Johns, a civil rights activist.

Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska praised the new legislation. Murkowski said the two Supreme Court justices each “made a mark on American history,” and Collins added that the women deserve “fitting tributes to their invaluable contributions to our country.”

“There’s literally thousands of visitors that come into this Capitol — billions over the years — both from our country and across the world … I was a child a lot of years ago when I first came,” Frankel said. “But you think about children coming to Washington. It’s really a highlight, and just think about going through the Capitol and hardly seeing any women represented as people you admire, heroes and heroines. It’s pretty shocking.”

Klobuchar introduced similar legislation to erect a monument to honor Ginsburg several times — once in September 2020, again in March 2021 and most recently in December 2021 with the inclusion of O’Connor. But the bill did not successfully pass the House and Senate until this year. Frankel said hopes visitors and future generations will see the statues and continue to be inspired by the Supreme Court Justices.

“It’s about time,” Frankel said.

Read More

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

Praying outdoors

ImagineGolf/Getty Images

For the Sake of Our Humanity: Humane Theology and America’s Crisis of Civility

The American experiment has been sustained not by flawless execution of its founding ideals but by the moral imagination of people who refused to surrender hope. From abolitionists to suffragists to the foot soldiers of the civil-rights movement, generations have insisted that the Republic live up to its creed. Yet today that hope feels imperiled. Coarsened public discourse, the normalization of cruelty in policy, and the corrosion of democratic trust signal more than political dysfunction—they expose a crisis of meaning.

Naming that crisis is not enough. What we need, I argue, is a recovered ethic of humaneness—a civic imagination rooted in empathy, dignity, and shared responsibility. Eric Liu, through Citizens University and his "Civic Saturday" fellows and gatherings, proposes that democracy requires a "civic religion," a shared set of stories and rituals that remind us who we are and what we owe one another. I find deep resonance between that vision and what I call humane theology. That is, a belief and moral framework that insists public life cannot flourish when empathy is starved.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

U.S. Supreme Court

Photo by mana5280 on Unsplash

The Myth of Colorblind Fairness

Two years after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, universities are scrambling to maintain diversity through “race-neutral” alternatives they believe will be inherently fair. New economic research reveals that colorblind policies may systematically create inequality in ways more pervasive than even the notorious “old boy” network.

The “old boy” network, as its name suggests, is nothing new—evoking smoky cigar lounges or golf courses where business ties are formed, careers are launched, and those not invited are left behind. Opportunity reproduces itself, passed down like an inheritance if you belong to the “right” group. The old boy network is not the only example of how a social network can discriminate. In fact, my research shows it may not even be the best one. And how social networks discriminate completely changes the debate about diversity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Rethinking Drug Policy: From Punishment to Empowerment
holding hands
Photo by Priscilla Du Preez 🇨🇦 on Unsplash

Rethinking Drug Policy: From Punishment to Empowerment

America’s drug policy is broken. For decades, we’ve focused primarily on the supply side—interdicting smugglers, prosecuting dealers, and escalating penalties while neglecting the demand side. Individuals who use drugs, more often than not, do so out of desperation, trauma, or addiction. This imbalance has cost lives, strained law enforcement, and failed to stem the tide of overdose deaths.

Fentanyl now kills an estimated 80,000 Americans annually. In response, some leaders have proposed extreme measures, including capital punishment for traffickers. But if we apply that logic consistently, what do we say about tobacco? Cigarette smoking and secondhand smoke kill nearly 480,000 Americans

Keep ReadingShow less
From Gerrymandering to Threats Faith in Democracy and Constitutional Erosion

U.S. Constitution

Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

From Gerrymandering to Threats Faith in Democracy and Constitutional Erosion

Many Americans have lost faith in the basic principles and form of the Constitutional Republic, as set forth by the Founders. People are abandoning Democratic ideals to create systems that multiply offenses against Constitutional safeguards, materializing in book banning, speech-restricting, and recent attempts to enact gerrymandering that dilutes the votes of “political opponents.” This represents Democratic erosion and a trend that endangers Constitutional checks and representative governance.

First, the recent gerrymandering, legal precedent, and founding principles should be reexamined, specifically, around the idea that our Founders did not predict this type of partisan map-drawing.

Keep ReadingShow less