Ginsburg wasn't a moderate; she was a noted ACLU lawyer known for her openly liberal views. There was hardly any objection to her nomination - she was confirmed 95-3 - and I don't recall any efforts by conservative to run anti-Ginsburg ads or accuse her of all sorts of corruption. Scalia, a noted conservative, was confirmed by a 98-0 vote.
"She was nominated by President Bill Clinton and at the time was
generally viewed as a moderate consensus-builder. She eventually
became part of the liberal wing of the Court as the Court shifted to
the right over time."
-- Wikipedia
Clinton went along with Republican Orrin Hatch's suggestion because he saw Ginsburg as a moderate who could add diversity to the Court in the form of gender and religious-affiliation. Back then, you see, we had sensible Presidents who did what they could to "balance" the Court, not appoint two wackos in a row who'll stack the Court 9-to-3 in favor of conservatives.
So, Ginsburg fought for women's rights in the 70s and 80s (having been looked down upon when she went to predominately-male law school in the 50s). You telling me rightists are still against gender equality and that being for it is being "openly liberal"?