RBG v. Scalia: Opposites Attract

“What’s not to like…except her views of the law, of course,” remarked Justice Antonin Scalia about his colleague, adversary, and longtime friend Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The pair, who served together on the supreme court for over 22 years, spanned opposite ends of the political spectrum. Scalia, a constitutional “originalist,” interpreted the law based on his perception of the founding fathers’ intentions. But Ginsburg believed that the the law was subject to changing interpretations with the changing times; as NPR journalist Nina Totenberg wrote, Ginsburg believed that “the Constitution has to expand to cover more than the 'white, property-owning men' who once were 'we the people.'" For example, while Scalia opposed the growing LGBTQ+ rights movement, Ginsburg was the first Justice to preside over a same-sex marriage. But despite their polar opposite perspectives on the constitution, both Scalia and RBG shared a deep devotion to it.

Ginsburg and Scalia first met when they served together on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the 1980s, becoming fast friends. "From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies," Ginsburg wrote about Scalia shortly after his death in 2016. Ginsburg remembered that she would have to pinch herself to keep from erupting in laughter when he would whisper jokes to her in court; very few could get a chuckle out of RBG. Their friendship only grew from there, connecting over a shared love of opera, good food and wine, and their childhoods in New York. Their families became close as well, and they often celebrated New Year’s all together. Eugene Scalia, the son of the late Antonin Scalia, added, “They had a bond, I think, in that they both grew up as outsiders — to different degrees — to the elites who had ruled the country: she as a Jew and woman, he as a Catholic and Italian American.” RBG and Scalia truly respected each other – including their differences. Scalia appreciated what Ginsburg had achieved when the odds were against her as a woman in law. He recognized that he could learn a lot from her, and in fact liked learning from her, calling it a “mutual improvement society.” And she could learn from him, too; in United States v. Virginia, RBG wrote the majority opinion, declaring that a state university’s exclusion of women violated the equal protection clause in the constitution. Though Scalia disagreed, he shared a draft of his “very spicy” (as Ginsburg called it) dissent with RBG before releasing it. Reading over Scalia’s dissent allowed RBG to recognize her weaknesses, sharpen her points, and improve the opinion overall.

There’s a lot that can be learned from these two justices, especially at a time of seemingly irreconcilable polarization. Everywhere we turn, we face disagreements, division, and discouragement. But RBG and Scalia didn’t let their differences deter them from building a profound friendship. They argued vehemently, but welcomed the debate and learned from it. They found common ground and deeply connected through shared experiences and passions. As Eugene Scalia asserted, “Not for a moment did one think the other should be condemned or ostracized. More than that, they believed that what they were doing — arriving at their own opinions thoughtfully and advancing them vigorously — was essential to the national good. With less debate, their friendship would have been diminished, and so, they believed, would our democracy.”