Dinners With Ruth

The author describes how both she and Ginsburg had many close friendships with men; she believes that this is because they both spent so much time in male-dominated workplaces. In spite of their political differences, Ginsburg maintained a close friendship with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who she found funny, charming, and friendly. The two bonded over their shared sense of humor, work ethic, and their attention to detail and legal procedure. Totenberg claims that Scalia could be a “bully” on the Court and sometimes shocked observers with his politically incorrect comments, but she concedes that he was a “mensch” to people who knew him personally (150-51).

Totenberg reflects on how NPR was lesser known than it is today, and in the late 1970s, she successfully scooped stories by being brash and showing up to political meetings uninvited. The author claims that this audacity helped her establish herself as a journalist. Sometimes, however, her rebellious nature did not help her.

At the time, the Justice Department required journalists to withhold the names of the officials who briefed them; Totenberg found this rule unnecessarily secretive and refused to follow it. As a result, she, and by extension her employer, NPR, were ostracized by the Justice Department. She asked Ted Olson, NPR’s legal advisor, for help, and he asked the Attorney General at the time to help resolve the situation. Totenberg’s access to the Justice Department was restored, and she established a close friendship with Ted Olson. While Totenberg and Olson, a conservative, disagree on many issues, she respects his intellect and his approach to his work. The author claims that such close friendships between conservatives and liberals are less common today, which she regards as “one of the saddest parts” of the current political climate (158).

At the age of 54, Totenberg was widowed with the passing of her husband, Floyd. Not long after, she attended one of her father’s final concerts as a violinist. At the show, a man whom she did not recognize approached her; he explained that her mother had sold him and his late wife their home. The man, David, later sent her a poem and told her that if she was ever in Boston, he would like to see her. At the urging of her friend, Totenberg decided to try a “quasi-date” with David a couple months later (161). While she found that she really liked him, it took time for their relationship to progress. Totenberg confided in Ginsburg at the beginning of her relationship with David, and was pleased that her circle of friends and family warmed to David quickly. The two had much in common, since they were the same age and had both lost their first spouses to long illnesses.

Later that year, Ginsburg was diagnosed with colon cancer and underwent treatment. Totenberg was thrilled that Ginsburg still managed to attend the Toni House Award ceremony, where Totenberg was given the award for her journalistic body of work over her career. Later that year, Totenberg became engaged to David. She and David enjoyed their friendship with Ginsburg and her husband Marty, and Totenberg felt that David was a particularly good friend to Ginsburg since, as a surgeon, he understood the implications of her health problems. Totenberg asked Ginsburg to perform the marriage ceremony. She reveals that Ginsburg especially loved to preside over weddings and often did so for friends, family members, and colleagues. Totenberg recalls that her wedding was “joyous” and made more profound by the fact that she and David had both gone through the grief of losing their first spouses (171). Totenberg reflects on Ginsburg’s resilience; she officiated their wedding with great energy and good humor despite being hospitalized the day before. The author feels that Ginsburg’s many hardships in life, such as losing her mother, helping her husband recover from cancer, and facing obstacles in her career, may have helped her become a “truly and deliberately kind” person (173).

Unfortunately, on their honeymoon, Totenberg was injured while swimming; she was hit by a boat and had her head cut open by its propeller. Her husband, David, oversaw her recovery and took care of her at the hotel. In spite of her stitches and bruises, Totenberg continued to work and even filmed a television piece for the Gore v. Bush case at the Supreme Court. That controversial case angered Ginsburg, who strongly felt that Gore was in the right. Totenberg claims that in spite of her anger, Ginsburg knew she had to maintain a collaborative approach to her work in order for the Court to function.

While Totenberg feels she was generally fortunate in her friendships, she explains that she also experienced frustration and loss in these relationships too. As a journalist, Totenberg tried to secure interviews with each of the Supreme Court Justices. She recalls how Hugo Black and William J. Brennan, Jr. were particularly difficult to persuade, but eventually Brennan agreed to an interview. Totenberg was pleased to interview Brennan in a series of taped conversations, and they soon became friends. Totenberg fondly remembers Brennan’s generous personality and “joy of living” (180). She claims that, unlike many other celebrated people in Washington, Brennan really was a “great man” because he was honest and genuine, and he often ruled against discriminatory laws or practices (181). When Brennan fell ill and retired, Totenberg would keep him company in his nursing home.

The author argues that dining together is what helped to cement many of her friendships, including those between herself, David, Marty, and Ginsburg. She remembers how Ginsburg was a careful and intentional conversationalist who disliked small talk and never violated the privacy of the Court’s current cases. While Totenberg was friends with many of the Justices, she did not entertain more than one at a time in her house, since “each friendship had a different flavor” (185). Totenberg remembers Scalia, whom she calls “Nino,” as a particularly funny and bold friend whose antics she enjoyed.