One of the most interesting sides to the story of the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has been the obvious deep friendship that there was between the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court and the most liberal Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Each of them has been considered one of the premier practitioners of their craft, the interpretation of the law. And, it appears to be precisely that which led them to their deep friendship, one so deep that Ginsburg penned one of the first tributes to her fallen friend. Just one year ago, they both were together on the stage of one of the auditoriums of George Washington University (GWU). An article written by a GWU journalist back then (2015) comments on their obvious appreciation of each other, to the point that they are able to joke about each other. At one point the journalist writes:
Both Harvard Law School graduates, they crossed paths while serving on the D.C. Circuit Court. Justice Scalia had the unpopular habit of editing his fellow judges’ opinions, and while most of his colleagues balked at the unsolicited revisions, Justice Ginsburg didn’t mind. In fact, she’d make comments on Justice Scalia’s writings, too. Her love of opera also set her apart.
“What’s not to like?” Justice Scalia said, before quickly deadpanning, “except her views on the law.”
But, then the journalist gets to the heart of their appreciation for one another:
It was a light joke, but one that gets to the heart of why the two are referred to as “the odd couple.” Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg stand as pillars for two opposing views of the Constitution. Justice Ginsburg, a pioneer for women’s rights and a fixture in the liberal world, frequently has touted the importance of a “living Constitution.” Through a conservative lens, Justice Scalia interprets the document as fixed.
They became fast friends, not because they agreed, but because they realized that their disagreement was held on deeply held principles. In fact, each of them actually agreed that the Constitution needs to be interpreted correctly and consistently, and that the Constitution ought never to be interpreted through the lens of political convenience or partisan politics. In each other they recognized people deeply committed to a Constitutional view of the law. That they disagreed did not matter as much to them as that they were both committed to the same idea of correct and consistent interpretation. And, so they became what we would nowadays call BFFs. They recognized in each other kindred spirits who were committed to the scholarly study and sound interpretation of the law. They realized of each other that the other would not compromise his/her beliefs. And that actually gave them the freedom to become friends and to fight with each other in the opinions they wrote, because they realized the honorable way in which each one of them held the position that they espoused.
Their relationship was a rare commodity in today’s world. Perhaps it was because they both were raised decades ago, in an age that was lest overtly partisan and more clearly old-fashioned in its view of what is polite and what is acceptable. What is true is that today’s world does not allow friendship or discussion between people who disagree. There are all too many circles where to consort with someone with whom you disagree is tantamount to consorting with the devil. If there seems to be a spirit of the age in America, it is “come out from her my people.” But, that is interpreted as a full and total separation from anyone with whom you disagree. It is almost impossible to have a true discussion nowadays because discussions are rarely based on logical reasoned argument but rather are based on innuendo, ad hominem arguments, irrelevant arguments, and deliberately tendentious interpretations of any event. Insult has taken the place of reason, and arguing that “you are just doing that because you are a _________” is seen somehow as actually being a winning argument, as though a person’s personal political or religious affiliation means that they are unable to be truly logical or rational.
Both Scalia and Ginsburg have taken severe hits in recent years. If Scalia was the consistent target of the left, so was Ginsburg the consistent target of the right. Both were accused of radical reinterpretation of the law, and of judicial overreach. It is quite interesting to look at criticisms of the two because so often the criticisms are almost identical save for a few details. In fact, neither saw the other as radically reinterpreting the law and neither saw the other as engaging in judicial overreach. Rather, both saw in each other a deeply committed scholar who had simply come to a different conclusion. Neither was willing to give up their belief, but neither was also willing to charge the other with any type of impure or inappropriate interpretation of the law.
Which brings up the question as to where those of us who claim to be Christians are in our discussions with others. Do we see those who disagree with us as simply heretics who must be defeated? Or, can we even espouse the point of recognizing that those who disagree with us may just be every bit as committed as we are, but have simply reached a different conclusion? Does that mean that we have to accept each other’s opinions? NO! Actually, Ginsburg and Scalia remind us that it is quite possible to not accept each other’s opinions at all! But, that is a different matter from respecting each other, forming friendships with others, and caring enough to lower the “emotional volume” of the argument to the point where the other is actually able to hear us and to appreciate the points we are trying to make. Those two judges showed that it is possible to tell the other that they are wrong while still maintaining a close friendship. And, since one was a strong conservative and one is a strong liberal, it is hard to say that either one of them is being politically correct.
Perhaps it is time that we learn to look at each other in the same way that Scalia and Ginsburg looked at each other. This does not mean we will agree. This does not mean we will vote for the same candidate. But, this does mean that perhaps we can learn how to be one nation that respects the other and that is willing to accept that we will not win every battle. It also means that perhaps we can learn how to gracefully disagree without tearing our nation apart, as we so clearly have been doing.
Let’s raise a cheer for Ginsburg and Scalia.
Leave a Reply