> The question of "does friendship compromise integrity of systems over time?" is quite fascinating, and there are many examples across many countries that show "yes, yes it does."

I think this is probably true in legislative bodies and in government agencies - for the same reason: both promote deal making because there's something to be gained.

One of the reasons the SC Justices are seated for life is precisely to blunt that effect. They can be friends without needing to make deals because they really don't get anything out of a deal - and one hopes they fully appreciate the gravity of their position.

The Court is a sort of unique entity in that it doesn't need (I don't think) to be confrontational in order to be effective. It is the one place where one would think, true wisdom reigns. And by and large, that is what I see from SCOTUS' decisions.

It's a sign of an intelligent, mature mind to be able to contain contradictory ideas without losing your identity. Being friends with someone on the other side of the political aisle, in a group as small as the supreme court, I would think has the effect of improving the quality of their deliberations and little else.

How can I not like him? Real easily, turns out! Scalia wanted to deny basic human dignities to people I care about. Scalia perpetuated a system that grinds your everyday citizen into the dirt because it made his moneyed interests a speck wealthier. To hell with that, and worse words besides.

A competent rhetorician is only "hard to hate" when you don't look at what they do. Keeping one's eye on the ball is not that difficult when you have a set of principles.

You should watch that second youtube link. His whole point was that judges shouldn't be in a position to deny anyone anything. It's a policy preference, and should not be left to seven unelected judges.

If you disagree with that, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. It was sort of incredible that Scalia basically straight-up says "You gave me the power to decide whether abortion is permitted nationwide? Really? Who thought this was a good idea?" (Not an actual quote; the talk is quite good.)

Apparently it wasn't always so, and Scalia explains the history too. The concept of the constitution as a "living document" was manufactured, along with the idea that morals mature over time. "Societies only mature, they never rot! /s"

What you're talking about is a matter of business. There are certainly some individuals that it would be quite difficult to be friends with in spite of what they've done. But if Scalia is one of them, well... Everyone has their preferences, I guess.

I am entirely already familiar with Scalia's approach to jurisprudence. I spent most of my youth thinking it was just such a great idea. I also grew up affluent, white, male, and cis; to no surprise, these are contributing factors. Having since grown up and built for myself some facility for basic human empathy I do disagree with that, because not everyone can pick up states and leave Alabama or whatever because their judiciary decides that they can stuff gay kids in conversion therapy or can relegate abortions to back alleys. It privileges me to have such a society because I can go wherever the hell I want because I have money.

Antonin Scalia's entire worldview was built because he knew he was a rear-guard for regressive thought and maybe, just maybe, a broken country with an impotent federal government could allow people like him to continue to kick the shit out of the weak a little longer. He was never going to get to punish women with an abortion ban (and today, would never get to fuck over trans people) nationally--so the natural outgrowth of this is to punish women and fuck of trans people where they can. All in the name of "letting people choose", so they can choose to vote on the basic humanity of others.

I reject the idea that one can "be friends" with the people who want to bring the long dark back. They will break civil society on the anvil of a supremacism that exists to benefit me, and I refuse it.