Antonin Scalia, the conservative anchor in the Supreme Court and a constitutional originalist, has died at the age of 79. He dissented the decision on gay and lesbian right to marry, the acceptance of women at public military universities and was noted by some as a leader in the fight against social issues and modern liberalism. What should we think of his death and the newly empty seat on the Supreme Court?
I think we needed the contrast he provided to moderates and progressives.
Scalia and progressive Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg shared a reverential friendship, one that separated legal views and personal life. She, a champion for women’s rights and gay marriage, spoke of him warmly and was quoted saying “I disagreed with most of what he said, but I loved the way he said it."
He, a believer in the literal and marble definition of the Constitution as written law said, “She likes opera, and she’s a very nice person. What’s not to like? Except her views on the law." They didn’t need their ideologies to be the same in order to be friends — I think it made the friendship stronger.
Maybe I’m wrong, but it’s possible that their “opposites attract” relationship could have caused them not to influence each other, but to strengthen their individual positions. The ability to look at the opposite side of an argument with respect rather than idealistic opinions could have furthered their polar ideals. Hearing a good argument from one another with respectful ears may have provided the backbone to their discourse.
In 2012 Scalia and Ginsberg agreed on only 56 percent of cases, the lowest of any pairing of justices. In solely five to four rulings, they ruled together only seven percent of the time. That same year they likely frequented the opera, dined at their favorite restaurants and vacationed together. The “odd couple,” as Scalia once called them, counted down the new year annually. They were a good match —better than many may have discerned.
Nurturing a relationship between polar opposite people requires an atmosphere of respect. It is easy to engage in arguments with people you disagree with if you don’t understand where they’re coming from and what mindset is driving their opinions. Understanding where someone is coming from does not mean agreeing with them, it doesn’t make your opinions any less founded in your beliefs. You can strengthen your opinions by understanding exactly what the argument is about.
The only special circumstance involved in Nino and RBG’s relationship was its foundation in the law. They shared a reason to actively pay attention to each other’s thoughts, to try to understand them and try to interpret the law in a way that best serves the country. Their discourses over the years on the different issues were weighted far more heavily than everyday issues and political conversations. Issues like gay marriage become not simplya matter of personal opinion, which was certainly involved and indelible on a decision maker, but one of firm arguments rather than hollow opinions.
To strengthen our own opinions we must not follow the usual prerogative of ignoring our own “dissenters," the opposite is true. We can build relationships based on respect in the pursuit of friendships and of deeper understanding of ourselves. Sometimes we need the contrast that our argumentative enemies can provide and we leave the experiences knowing more about ourselves. Antonin Scalia did a lot for conservatives in the Court and I understand this is a stretch, maybe he did so with a nod to progressives (it's even rumored that he had something to do with RBG's appointing to the Court).
Cue 'finale'.
