Ruth Bader Ginsburg issues controversial ruling: Hot dogs are sandwiches

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has had plenty of controversial opinions in her 85 years of life and 24 years on the nation's highest court, contemplating questions like, are corporations entitled to freedom of speech, and are campaign contributions an exercise of that speech? Does due process entitle same-sex couples to the right to marry? Do male-only military academies violate the equal protection clause?

But in a Wednesday appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, she decided to wade into what might be the most fraught debate of all: Are hot dogs sandwiches?

Her answer is yes — sort of.

"You tell me what a sandwich is, and I'll tell you if a hot dog is a sandwich," she told Colbert when asked to weigh in.

Photo: AFP/Getty Left: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2009 (Mandel...

Colbert defined a sandwich as "two pieces of bread with almost any type of filling in between, as long as it's not more bread."

With her incisive legal acumen, Ginsburg zeroed in on an all-important point of contention for those who believe hot dogs are not sandwiches: the bun.

"Two pieces of bread," she said. "Does that include a roll that's cut open, but still not completely?"

The host pointed out that in the case of a sub sandwich, the bread is not fully separated, but the item is still clearly a sandwich, an argument that seemed to win over Ginsberg, who said that by Colbert's definition, a hot dog is a sandwich.

Then, she worked out with Colbert and out-bench-pressed him, because she will outlive us all.

"Not only can the justice last another five years on the bench," Colbert said, "I believe she could have killed Tupac."

Filipa Ioannou is an SFGATE staff writer. Email her at fioannou@sfchronicle.com and follow her on Twitter