Colbert Asked RBG Whether a Hotdog Is a Sandwich. Here's What You Say
"I was told not to ask her about any pending cases before the court—but I just had to press her on one of the most divisive issues facing our country," Stephen Colbert said.
March 22, 2018 at 03:00 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
“Is a hot dog a sandwich?” Despite thousands of written words on the jurisprudence of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it took just minutes and that single question for “Late Show” host Stephen Colbert on Wednesday night to reveal how the justice's mind works.
Colbert reached out to Ginsburg for an invitation to join her workout in the gym at the Watergate Apartments in Washington. (Ginsburg wasn't Colbert's first chat with a justice. Here are interview clips between Colbert and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer.)
Before his hilarious attempts to match the justice's exercises—”Are you juicing?” he asked at one point—Colbert peppered Ginsburg with a few questions.
“I was told not to ask her about any pending cases before the court—but I just had to press her on one of the most divisive issues facing our country,” Colbert said.
Here's the exchange that followed:
Colbert: Is a hot dog a sandwich?
RBG: You're asking me? Well, you tell me what a sandwich is and then I'll tell you if a hot dog is a sandwich.
Colbert: A sandwich is two pieces of bread with almost any type of filling in between, as long as it's not more bread.
RBG: You say two pieces of bread. Does that include a roll that's kind of open but still not completely?
Colbert: That's the crux. You've gotten [it] immediately. See this is why you're on the Supreme Court. That gets immediately to the question: does the roll need to be separated into two parts? Because a sub sandwich—a sub is not split and yet it is a sandwich.
RBG: Yes.
Colbert: So then a hot dog is a sandwich?
RBG: On your definition, yes, it is.
Colbert: Well played, lady justice.
Clearly, the question is not an easy one, and Ginsburg's answer reflected, if not that time-honored doctrine of constitutional avoidance, at least, judicial avoidance.
To assist Colbert in his search for an answer, several veteran Supreme Court advocates offered their best arguments in response to the justice's response.
Vinson & Elkins partner John Elwood
A hot dog must never be called a “sandwich,” lest someone think it is appropriate to put mayonnaise on one.
My more serious answer is that a hot dog is not a sandwich because people would not ordinarily use that word to describe a hot dog. Plus, there is the whole “a bun is not two slices of bread” thing.
Think back to when you were a kid and your mom ran out of buns and had to serve you a hot dog on bread, and she sliced the dog in half so it would fit between the slices and not roll out. That was, admittedly, a sandwich. But it also was an abomination against all that is good, and inferior in every way to a hot dog.
Goldstein & Russell partner Thomas Goldstein
I dissent.
Sidley Austin partner Carter Phillips (sitting in an airport, laughing at the video clip until he had tears in his eyes “and everyone around me thinks I'm nuts”):
Meat between bread clearly is a sandwich. Same rule and result for hamburgers.
Williams & Connolly partner Kannon Shanmugam
I could state my views on that, but I want to retain the ability to represent either side in the inevitable litigation.
Morrison & Foerster partner Joseph Palmore
To be frank, I do not relish the idea of disagreeing with my former boss on such a beefy question. So I won't. Under the definition as served up by Colbert, a hot dog is a sandwich.
Read more:
No, Justice Ginsburg and Former US Solicitors Are Not Advising This Crypto Company
'RBG Workout' Book Gives New Meaning to Habeas Corpus
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Seized the #MeToo Moment. Here's What She Is Saying
An RBG Trifecta—A SCOTUS First?
Justice Ginsburg Scorns 'History Lesson' in This Gorsuch Dissent
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAm Law 100 Partners on Trump’s Short List to Replace Gensler as SEC Chair
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 2No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 3Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 4Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 5Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250