A very inspiring insight in this article:
Justice Ginsburg and Justice Scalia, each firmly believed that mature people could in good faith take different views on even the most important legal questions without being histrionic or posing a threat to their adversary’s feelings. Instead, they saw their differences as providing each other with an opportunity to sharpen their own thinking. Justice Ginsburg put it best: “When we disagreed,” she said, “my final opinion was always clearer and more convincing than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia honed in on all the soft spots, energizing me to strengthen my presentation.”
Once, the two had been on a trip to India, where they rode together on an elephant. At a joint appearance following the trip, Justice Scalia asked her if her feminist friends were disturbed that he was sitting in front. Not at all, she replied. She had explained to them that the elephant driver had said their placement was “a matter of distribution of weight.” The audience roared, as did Justice Scalia.
About two years ago, Justice Ginsburg wrote the foreword to Scalia Speaks, an edited collection of Scalia’s speeches. She concluded the foreword: “If our friendship encourages others to appreciate that some very good people have ideas with which we disagree, and that, despite differences, people of goodwill can pull together for the well-being of the institutions we serve and our country, I will be overjoyed, as I am confident Justice Scalia would be.”
Source: The Federalist Society
