That's an elaborate defence you've constructed there but it doesn't bear out the facts. If she'd meant what you said she'd have said what you said. She didn't. She clearly said it will never be enough until there are no men on the Supreme Court. She even acknowledged the "shock" that people experience upon hearing her radical, maximalist position.
Her comment was about affirmative action. Quotas for the number of minorities in a particular job constitutes affirmative action. That's what working to ensure no men are sitting on the Supreme Court constitutes: affirmative action.
She made her position perfectly clear but you are trying to rewrite it for her for some reason. She said her feminist agitation will never end until there are no men on the Supreme Court. It's blatant, undisguised misandry and if someone had said the same thing about any other minority being purged from the judiciary there would be an outcry. But attacking "old white, Christian men" - the patriarchy; is allowed and encouraged. The Ginsburgs of this world are cowardly, spiteful worms. They know white, Christian men aren't a problem, aren't privileged(quite the contrary) and won't bite back. She doesn't have the guts to speak out against the real perpetrators of systematic, institutionalised misogyny and violence against women.
Ginsburg is a longtime radical who was so extreme and the Clintons were warned about her:
And she's always been an affirmative action fascist, eg see her dissenting opinion:
She's a known, hard-left extremist and I don't know why you're acting as her apologist.