‘Sisters in Law’ dramatizes relationship between first women justices

Dramatists wouldn’t dare write characters as disparate and lively as Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the same play, said Jonathan Shapiro.

The two trailblazing Supreme Court justices are almost cliche in their contrasts in real life – O’Connor is a Christian Republican from Arizona, known for being outgoing and athletic, while Ginsburg is a shy, introverted New York-born Jewish Democrat. Yet despite their differences and disagreements in real life, the two have a deep friendship that transcends politics in a way not often seen today, the UCLA law professor said.

Shapiro dramatizes their relationship in his play “Sisters in Law,” adapting Linda Hirshman’s book of the same name. The play made its West Coast debut Sept. 17 at The Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts. The play aims to use the distinct historical narrative to create a timeless production that helps make sense of the tensions and divisions that characterize the political landscape today by providing a true example of compassion and compromise, Shapiro said.

“The names of the issues will change, but the fundamentals will never change because this is a struggle between two timeless visions, one of which says change should happen fast and one of which that says change, if it’s going to happen at all, must come slowly,” Shapiro said. “This play is a road map as to how to save our country.”

[RELATED: Second Take: Boycotting is film industry’s right move to protest Georgia’s ‘heartbeat’ bill]

After going on a cross-country book tour in the past year, Shapiro felt the sense that people were longing for a way to find common ground in spite of their differences based on the conversations he was having. The Wallis artistic director Paul Crewes felt a similar interest, which he said factored into the decision to produce the play at The Wallis. By demonstrating how love, respect and disagreement can all coexist, “Sisters in Law” portrays a relationship that isn’t traditionally seen, Crewes said.

“They were on different sides of the political spectrum, yet they managed to work together, and they found a way of negotiating and getting things done,” Crewes said. “We’re in a world where that’s not happening as well as it could be.”

In order to best explore the depth of O’Connor and Ginsburg’s relationship, Shapiro had to decide which time period to focus on, settling on 1975 to 2012. Shapiro also had to select the best narrative strategy to convey their story. While trials and hearings can be dramatic, Shapiro said he wanted to focus on the elements of deliberation that aren’t always so public.

“What I wanted to do in this play was pull the curtain back and show the audience how law is really made, how compromise really takes place, how people struggled to find common ground,” Shapiro said. “Sometimes they succeed and sometimes they don’t.”

As Shapiro considered the lives of O’Connor and Ginsburg, who were the first and second female justices to join the Supreme Court, respectively, he also considered their legacies and personas. Both women have been built up in popular culture, and Shapiro strove to avoid treating them as saints.

Rather than focusing on their status as Supreme Court justices, Shapiro centered the play on the idea that O’Connor and Ginsburg were just two women who had never had the challenge of working with another woman of equal power. Ultimately, Shapiro said O’Connor and Ginsburg were both women who had loved and lost spouses, raised children and faced health problems, all while holding their own individual career ambitions and challenges.

This reality was part of what drew director Patricia McGregor to the project – she wanted to focus on the humanity and reality of the two women. McGregor said she began preparing for the project by researching the justices, reading about them and watching interviews, with the goal of understanding them as complex, multifaceted women. She used that intense character study and knowledge of the women to bring Shapiro’s scenes to life.

“We know the parameters of (the justices), but this scene might need their diplomat, and this scene might need their mother and this scene might need their Olympian,” McGregor said. “You do all of that research, and then you go moment to moment or scene by scene. What part of themselves do (the actors) need to bring?”

[RELATED: Alumna’s documentary to shed light on survivors’ stories of sex trafficking]

Understanding the facets and motivations of the justices was made easier by Shapiro’s legal background as a former assistant U.S. attorney and trial lawyer. Shapiro said because he had inhabited the same legal background and arena as the two women, he could better convey the way in which they approached the law and the emotion they brought to their practice.

“If you’re going to write about these women, you have to appreciate and understand that their lives have been devoted to the law,” Shapiro said. “I credit my legal background for understanding that when they’re talking about a case, they’re talking about their fundamental belief system, they’re talking about who they are as people and the world they want.”

The passion for discourse that existed between O’Connor and Ginsburg is key in understanding how to navigate differences of opinion – figuring out when to compromise and listen, and when to plant our feet in the ground, McGregor said. At a time where the country is at a crucial time with many different potential outcomes, reflecting on current events serves to sharpen the message of the piece and focus on working on building a path forward, she said.

“This piece is about the mile of road that people paved before to help inform us on the mile of road that is our responsibility to pave now,” McGregor said. “I hope watching this play will help us learn about how these two women paved the road, their mile before, and hopefully inspire people to want to pave the mile after.”