On the Basis of Sex, a movie honoring the life of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, completely omits her part in subjugating the rule of law, and replacing the meaning of our Constitution with the transient whims and fancies held by a majority of our Supreme Court members.
If there ever was a succinct characterization defining a fundamental rule to determine what a specific provision of our Constitution means, that summation is found in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), when our Supreme Court notes the supremacy of legislative intent:
”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :
“A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law.”
It should also be pointed out that in a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could "cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."
Indeed, to not anchor our Constitution to the documented intentions and beliefs of the people at the time our Constitution was adopted, and allow the mere whims and fancies of seven members on our Supreme Court to masquerade as “the rule of law", is to destroy the very reason for having a written Constitution, and is acquiescing to the personal predilections which a majority on our Court dictates is “the rule of law”. And this is the legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg ___ a subjugation of our written Constitution and the rule of law! Let me explain.
In delivering the Court’s opinion in the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) case, decided June 26, 1996, which commanded the Institute to accept women by citing the 14th Amendment as forbidding sex discrimination, Ginsburg asserted a party seeking to make a distinction based upon sex must establish an "exceedingly persuasive justification" In addition, Ginsburg asserted, “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.”
Of course, these parameters are Ginsburg’s personal desires. They are not part of our Constitution or the fundamental rules of constitutional construction. Making distinctions based upon sex was never intended to be forbidden under the 14th Amendment, nor does its text remotely suggest our Constitution is violated if the citizens of a state make distinctions based upon sex. The 14th Amendment merely declares, whatever laws a state may adopt, it may not “…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of …” those specific laws. Its laws must be enforced equally!
As a matter of fact, the American people specifically addressed Ginsburg’s desires in the 1980s when a proposed amendment to our Constitution, which would have forbidden the people of a state to make distinctions based upon “sex”, was rejected! And yet, Justice Ginsburg and six other members of the Court, overruled our Constitution’s exclusive method [Article V] to alter our Constitution to accommodate perceived changing times, and she, along with six others, took it upon themselves to impose their personal whims and fancies as the rule of law. 
So, for all those who go to see “On the Basis of Sex”, keep in mind it is the latest piece of propaganda created by Hollywood’s Fifth Column activists to glorify a member of our Supreme Court who has used her office of public trust to tear down what the people of America knowingly and willingly agreed to when adopting a written constitution.
 Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Rehnquist, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Thomas, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.