What we can learn from Ginsburg’s friendship with my father, Antonin Scalia

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,788
Reaction score
5,150
Points
280
Location
Washington
What we can learn from the justices, though — beyond how to be a friend — is how to welcome debate and differences. The two justices had central roles in addressing some of the most divisive issues of the day, including cases on abortion, same-sex marriage and who would be president. 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.
Eugene Scalia

I think there's a lesson here for all us. Just because we disagree on issues should not be a reason for disrespect and hatred. There is far too much of this in politics today and it makes us weaker, not stronger as a nation.

You can disagree without being disagreeable.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,885
Reaction score
4,346
Points
1,140
The problem with the OP is that it totally disregards that real and significant harm has been done due to Justices that legislate from the bench and are activists first, court members second.

A SCOTUS that disregards the Constitution is NOT a victimless crime.
You’re speaking from one side with no regard for the other. The OP obviously went right over your head
 

BasicHumanUnit

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
13,524
Reaction score
6,638
Points
390
Location
Everywhere needed
The problem with the OP is that it totally disregards that real and significant harm has been done due to Justices that legislate from the bench and are activists first, court members second.

A SCOTUS that disregards the Constitution is NOT a victimless crime.
You’re speaking from one side with no regard for the other. The OP obviously went right over your head
NO
I'm speaking from KNOWLEDGE.
She did damage to the nation....so I have zero respect for her or posts that glorify her.

You do realize there are many who have similar praises of Adolf Hitler as well?
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,885
Reaction score
4,346
Points
1,140
The problem with the OP is that it totally disregards that real and significant harm has been done due to Justices that legislate from the bench and are activists first, court members second.

A SCOTUS that disregards the Constitution is NOT a victimless crime.
You’re speaking from one side with no regard for the other. The OP obviously went right over your head
NO
I'm speaking from KNOWLEDGE.
I’m sure you think so but the level of intellect in your statement pales in comparison to the messages in the OP.
 

BasicHumanUnit

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
13,524
Reaction score
6,638
Points
390
Location
Everywhere needed
The problem with the OP is that it totally disregards that real and significant harm has been done due to Justices that legislate from the bench and are activists first, court members second.

A SCOTUS that disregards the Constitution is NOT a victimless crime.
You’re speaking from one side with no regard for the other. The OP obviously went right over your head
NO
I'm speaking from KNOWLEDGE.
I’m sure you think so but the level of intellect in your statement pales in comparison to the messages in the OP.
You're entitled to your opinion.

But the hypocrisy is your unrelenting contempt for Trump.
Yet you are offended when the Right doesn't admire your idols.

Typical
 
OP
Flopper

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,788
Reaction score
5,150
Points
280
Location
Washington
There are people on Facebook saying they will unfriend people for disagreeing with them about Trump and BLM.
Trump supporters waving signs at a BLM march have been attacked. Fights have been breaking out in Portland between far right and far left groups. When people allow national politics to become a central part of their lives, the nation is in trouble.

If your community is anything like mine, the decisions made by the mayor and the city council have far more direct impact on daily life than those made by the president. Yet only 1/3 of the people in my city know the name of the mayor or the name of more than one city counsel member. Only about 20% will vote in an all local election yet over 70% will vote in a national election.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,885
Reaction score
4,346
Points
1,140
There are people on Facebook saying they will unfriend people for disagreeing with them about Trump and BLM.
Trump supporters waving signs at a BLM march have been attacked. Fights have been breaking out in Portland between far right and far left groups. When people allow national politics to become a central part of their lives, the nation is in trouble.

If your community is anything like mine, the decisions made by the mayor and the city council have far more direct impact on daily life than those made by the president. Yet only 1/3 of the people in my city know the name of the mayor or the name of more than one city counsel member. Only about 20% will vote in an all local election yet over 70% will vote in a national election.
Look how much money and attention are spent in national elections vs local
 
OP
Flopper

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,788
Reaction score
5,150
Points
280
Location
Washington
There are people on Facebook saying they will unfriend people for disagreeing with them about Trump and BLM.
Trump supporters waving signs at a BLM march have been attacked. Fights have been breaking out in Portland between far right and far left groups. When people allow national politics to become a central part of their lives, the nation is in trouble.

If your community is anything like mine, the decisions made by the mayor and the city council have far more direct impact on daily life than those made by the president. Yet only 1/3 of the people in my city know the name of the mayor or the name of more than one city counsel member. Only about 20% will vote in an all local election yet over 70% will vote in a national election.
Look how much money and attention are spent in national elections vs local
That is due to the fact that so many Americans have gone crazy over national politics but why? Why, has America become fundamentally unglued? Why have otherwise rational people began to act irrationally? Why have Facebook and Twitter feeds turned into political battlegrounds? Why have so many people ended relationships or friendships over political disagreements? How did everything turn so upside down in a time of relative peace and prosperity in America?

In the grand scheme of things, the country has faced far more significant issues. Democrats are no more concerned over social issues than in the past Republicans ideology hasn't significantly changed in last 40 years and we’ve come a long way as a country when our national debate over equality has boiled down to which bathroom people who are changing their genders use.
 
Last edited:

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
69,565
Reaction score
13,382
Points
2,220
What we can learn from the justices, though — beyond how to be a friend — is how to welcome debate and differences. The two justices had central roles in addressing some of the most divisive issues of the day, including cases on abortion, same-sex marriage and who would be president. 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.
Eugene Scalia

I think there's a lesson here for all us. Just because we disagree on issues should not be a reason for disrespect and hatred. There is far too much of this in politics today and it makes us weaker, not stronger as a nation.

You can disagree without being disagreeable.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg


Are you ready to stop supporting false allegations of racism made against republicans, especially Trump?
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
55,411
Reaction score
13,928
Points
2,220
Location
Maine
The problem with the OP is that it totally disregards that real and significant harm has been done due to Justices that legislate from the bench and are activists first, court members second.

A SCOTUS that disregards the Constitution is NOT a victimless crime.
Totally disagree.... both Ginsburg and Scalia believed in the Court and Constitution, above all else!!!

THAT IS WHY they could still be friends, even through their disagreements...because they were honest intellectual, disagreements.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,885
Reaction score
4,346
Points
1,140
There are people on Facebook saying they will unfriend people for disagreeing with them about Trump and BLM.
Trump supporters waving signs at a BLM march have been attacked. Fights have been breaking out in Portland between far right and far left groups. When people allow national politics to become a central part of their lives, the nation is in trouble.

If your community is anything like mine, the decisions made by the mayor and the city council have far more direct impact on daily life than those made by the president. Yet only 1/3 of the people in my city know the name of the mayor or the name of more than one city counsel member. Only about 20% will vote in an all local election yet over 70% will vote in a national election.
Look how much money and attention are spent in national elections vs local
That is due to the fact that so many Americans have gone crazy over national politics but why? Why, has America become fundamentally unglued? Why have otherwise rational people began to act irrationally? Why have Facebook and Twitter feeds turned into political battlegrounds? Why have so many people ended relationships or friendships over political disagreements? How did everything turn so upside down in a time of relative peace and prosperity in America?

In the grand scheme of things, the country has faced far more significant issues. Democrats are no more concerned over social issues than in the past Republicans ideology hasn't significantly changed in last 40 years and we’ve come a long way as a country when our national debate over equality has boiled down to which bathroom people who are changing their genders use.
Why you ask? Because we live in the digital age where entities have perfected the art and psychology of marketing and campaigning. Play off fear, demonize the enemy, use peoples insecurities to draw their support. Couple that with the 24/7 cable news cycle, editorial “news” shows like Rush and Hannity, social media bubbles, and a thirst for drama from our tabloid envying society... well it’s the perfect storm. And the result is the shittiest president in our history. An egomaniac who represents all of the above.
 
OP
Flopper

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,788
Reaction score
5,150
Points
280
Location
Washington
What we can learn from the justices, though — beyond how to be a friend — is how to welcome debate and differences. The two justices had central roles in addressing some of the most divisive issues of the day, including cases on abortion, same-sex marriage and who would be president. 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.
Eugene Scalia

I think there's a lesson here for all us. Just because we disagree on issues should not be a reason for disrespect and hatred. There is far too much of this in politics today and it makes us weaker, not stronger as a nation.

You can disagree without being disagreeable.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg


Are you ready to stop supporting false allegations of racism made against republicans, especially Trump?
But why should cordial and respective behavior between people be dependent on whether a person believes and supports allegations about the president? That really doesn't make much sense. It seems if any disrespect or discourtesy is due, it should be directed at the person responsible for those allegations not those that read and believe them. In fact, there is no reason to be disrespectful or discourtesy to anyone simply because they hold different political views. It certainly will not change their views and if anything it will make them stronger. Carried to an extreme as is on this board, people become so ridge in their beliefs that they can not share any common reality with the opposition so they can not agree on facts. Then debates are not debates, they are just a series of personal attacks punctuated by statements of beliefs.
 

iceberg

Gold Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
28,481
Reaction score
7,098
Points
290
There are people on Facebook saying they will unfriend people for disagreeing with them about Trump and BLM.
i think we've all lost friends. but the friends i truly value are much more tolerant of other views. if my views made them leave, well; bye.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,885
Reaction score
4,346
Points
1,140
What we can learn from the justices, though — beyond how to be a friend — is how to welcome debate and differences. The two justices had central roles in addressing some of the most divisive issues of the day, including cases on abortion, same-sex marriage and who would be president. 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.
Eugene Scalia

I think there's a lesson here for all us. Just because we disagree on issues should not be a reason for disrespect and hatred. There is far too much of this in politics today and it makes us weaker, not stronger as a nation.

You can disagree without being disagreeable.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg


Are you ready to stop supporting false allegations of racism made against republicans, especially Trump?
But why should cordial and respective behavior between people be dependent on whether a person believes and supports allegations about the president? That really doesn't make much sense. It seems if any disrespect or discourtesy is due, it should be directed at the person responsible for those allegations not those that read and believe them. In fact, there is no reason to be disrespectful or discourtesy to anyone simply because they hold different political views. It certainly will not change their views and if anything it will make them stronger. Carried to an extreme as is on this board, people become so ridge in their beliefs that they can not share any common reality with the opposition so they can not agree on facts. Then debates are not debates, they are just a series of personal attacks punctuated by statements of beliefs.
Well said :clap::clap:
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
69,565
Reaction score
13,382
Points
2,220
What we can learn from the justices, though — beyond how to be a friend — is how to welcome debate and differences. The two justices had central roles in addressing some of the most divisive issues of the day, including cases on abortion, same-sex marriage and who would be president. 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.
Eugene Scalia

I think there's a lesson here for all us. Just because we disagree on issues should not be a reason for disrespect and hatred. There is far too much of this in politics today and it makes us weaker, not stronger as a nation.

You can disagree without being disagreeable.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg


Are you ready to stop supporting false allegations of racism made against republicans, especially Trump?
But why should cordial and respective behavior between people be dependent on whether a person believes and supports allegations about the president? That really doesn't make much sense. It seems if any disrespect or discourtesy is due, it should be directed at the person responsible for those allegations not those that read and believe them. In fact, there is no reason to be disrespectful or discourtesy to anyone simply because they hold different political views. It certainly will not change their views and if anything it will make them stronger. Carried to an extreme as is on this board, people become so ridge in their beliefs that they can not share any common reality with the opposition so they can not agree on facts. Then debates are not debates, they are just a series of personal attacks punctuated by statements of beliefs.

When you support false allegations of racism, in the current culture, you create an environment of extreme toxicity, so that respect and courtesy become impossible. No lib is going to respect or be courtesy to any conservative, , if they have convinced themselves that that conservative is a racist.

We as a divided society do NOT share any common reality anymore. ON every issue, there is a huge gap in perceptions and constructive discussion is impossible.


If you are saying that you do not LIKE this situation, then I am telling you the first step is to stop supporting false allegations of racism.


IF there was a significant percentage of liberals that refused to support these false allegations, and especially if they made a point of calling them out, it would hit the perceptions of conservatives like a freight train.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
34,885
Reaction score
4,346
Points
1,140
What we can learn from the justices, though — beyond how to be a friend — is how to welcome debate and differences. The two justices had central roles in addressing some of the most divisive issues of the day, including cases on abortion, same-sex marriage and who would be president. 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.
Eugene Scalia

I think there's a lesson here for all us. Just because we disagree on issues should not be a reason for disrespect and hatred. There is far too much of this in politics today and it makes us weaker, not stronger as a nation.

You can disagree without being disagreeable.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg


Are you ready to stop supporting false allegations of racism made against republicans, especially Trump?
But why should cordial and respective behavior between people be dependent on whether a person believes and supports allegations about the president? That really doesn't make much sense. It seems if any disrespect or discourtesy is due, it should be directed at the person responsible for those allegations not those that read and believe them. In fact, there is no reason to be disrespectful or discourtesy to anyone simply because they hold different political views. It certainly will not change their views and if anything it will make them stronger. Carried to an extreme as is on this board, people become so ridge in their beliefs that they can not share any common reality with the opposition so they can not agree on facts. Then debates are not debates, they are just a series of personal attacks punctuated by statements of beliefs.

When you support false allegations of racism, in the current culture, you create an environment of extreme toxicity, so that respect and courtesy become impossible. No lib is going to respect or be courtesy to any conservative, , if they have convinced themselves that that conservative is a racist.

We as a divided society do NOT share any common reality anymore. ON every issue, there is a huge gap in perceptions and constructive discussion is impossible.


If you are saying that you do not LIKE this situation, then I am telling you the first step is to stop supporting false allegations of racism.


IF there was a significant percentage of liberals that refused to support these false allegations, and especially if they made a point of calling them out, it would hit the perceptions of conservatives like a freight train.
Would you consider it a possibility that what you consider a False sense of racism is perceived by others as a Real sense of racism? Perhaps you have never felt it so you think it is false and they have felt it so they think it’s real. If you can acknowledge that then there should exist the ability to learn from eachother. By using phrases like “False sense of racism” you are automatically dismissing the entire premise behind the cause that millions of people are standing for. You can’t see the issue with that and how it perpetuates the problem?

To your point, yes when actual false accusations of racism are made it perpetuates the problem and the Left is very guilty of that.

To the OPs point. We should be able to discuss these issues from both sides to come to an understanding. But the knee jerk reactions and name calling and dismissal of eachothers arguments is what most tend to do
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
69,565
Reaction score
13,382
Points
2,220
What we can learn from the justices, though — beyond how to be a friend — is how to welcome debate and differences. The two justices had central roles in addressing some of the most divisive issues of the day, including cases on abortion, same-sex marriage and who would be president. 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.
Eugene Scalia

I think there's a lesson here for all us. Just because we disagree on issues should not be a reason for disrespect and hatred. There is far too much of this in politics today and it makes us weaker, not stronger as a nation.

You can disagree without being disagreeable.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg


Are you ready to stop supporting false allegations of racism made against republicans, especially Trump?
But why should cordial and respective behavior between people be dependent on whether a person believes and supports allegations about the president? That really doesn't make much sense. It seems if any disrespect or discourtesy is due, it should be directed at the person responsible for those allegations not those that read and believe them. In fact, there is no reason to be disrespectful or discourtesy to anyone simply because they hold different political views. It certainly will not change their views and if anything it will make them stronger. Carried to an extreme as is on this board, people become so ridge in their beliefs that they can not share any common reality with the opposition so they can not agree on facts. Then debates are not debates, they are just a series of personal attacks punctuated by statements of beliefs.

When you support false allegations of racism, in the current culture, you create an environment of extreme toxicity, so that respect and courtesy become impossible. No lib is going to respect or be courtesy to any conservative, , if they have convinced themselves that that conservative is a racist.

We as a divided society do NOT share any common reality anymore. ON every issue, there is a huge gap in perceptions and constructive discussion is impossible.


If you are saying that you do not LIKE this situation, then I am telling you the first step is to stop supporting false allegations of racism.


IF there was a significant percentage of liberals that refused to support these false allegations, and especially if they made a point of calling them out, it would hit the perceptions of conservatives like a freight train.
Would you consider it a possibility that what you consider a False sense of racism is perceived by others as a Real sense of racism? Perhaps you have never felt it so you think it is false and they have felt it so they think it’s real. If you can acknowledge that then there should exist the ability to learn from eachother. By using phrases like “False sense of racism” you are automatically dismissing the entire premise behind the cause that millions of people are standing for. You can’t see the issue with that and how it perpetuates the problem?


The Charlottesville Lie is too clear to be honest. Trump was explicit and specific in his NOT including WS in his "good people" comment and the Left, almost Universally, lied about what he said, and judged and attacked and smeared Republicans based on an obvious lie, and continue to do so to this day.


We cannot have any "shared reality" when a good third to one half of the country, thinks that the other half is, if not WS themselves, at least sympathetic to them.


AND to be clear, it is your side that is choosing to be deluded.


AND, that is just one of the more clear examples of false accusations. There are uncounted less obvious lies, that poison the civil discourse of this nation.


You want to improve things? Stop supporting such vile lies and call them out.
 
OP
Flopper

Flopper

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
24,788
Reaction score
5,150
Points
280
Location
Washington
There are people on Facebook saying they will unfriend people for disagreeing with them about Trump and BLM.
Trump supporters waving signs at a BLM march have been attacked. Fights have been breaking out in Portland between far right and far left groups. When people allow national politics to become a central part of their lives, the nation is in trouble.

If your community is anything like mine, the decisions made by the mayor and the city council have far more direct impact on daily life than those made by the president. Yet only 1/3 of the people in my city know the name of the mayor or the name of more than one city counsel member. Only about 20% will vote in an all local election yet over 70% will vote in a national election.
Look how much money and attention are spent in national elections vs local
That is due to the fact that so many Americans have gone crazy over national politics but why? Why, has America become fundamentally unglued? Why have otherwise rational people began to act irrationally? Why have Facebook and Twitter feeds turned into political battlegrounds? Why have so many people ended relationships or friendships over political disagreements? How did everything turn so upside down in a time of relative peace and prosperity in America?

In the grand scheme of things, the country has faced far more significant issues. Democrats are no more concerned over social issues than in the past Republicans ideology hasn't significantly changed in last 40 years and we’ve come a long way as a country when our national debate over equality has boiled down to which bathroom people who are changing their genders use.
Why you ask? Because we live in the digital age where entities have perfected the art and psychology of marketing and campaigning. Play off fear, demonize the enemy, use peoples insecurities to draw their support. Couple that with the 24/7 cable news cycle, editorial “news” shows like Rush and Hannity, social media bubbles, and a thirst for drama from our tabloid envying society... well it’s the perfect storm. And the result is the shittiest president in our history. An egomaniac who represents all of the above.
I say the only difference is due to technology which made possible the expansion of media and speed that information can be delivered. I believe the psychology of campaigning, dirty tricks, fear mongering, etc is much the same and people have always had a desire for information and drama. I also think there has been little difference in quality of people elected. You just know about thousand times as much about them and hear far more commentary both true and false. People really don't change that much. Media has always been biased and dishonest.

For most of American media history there was no concept of unbiased, neutral journalism. Newspapers endorsed political candidates and savaged their opponents in print. If you think politics is rough now, go read what was written about Andrew Jackson’s wife when he ran for president or what was said about Abraham Lincoln during his 1860 and 1864 presidential campaigns. Newspapers, which in their most basic business models are aggregations of advertisements surrounded by articles of interest designed to get people to buy the paper, were the first mass distributed method of political discourse in this country. Leaving aside pamphlets like Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” newspapers were our first mass distributed pop culture. And newspapers began as ribald, rollicking, bitterly partisan broadsides for or against particular candidates and policies.

Today, the media with it's huge foot print in America, foments conflict and angst and anger and fear because that’s what makes the media money. But the reason why our political media is broken isn’t because the political media is broken, it’s because we’re broken. Every time that Donald Trump gets attacked, his base likes him more and every time the left wing base attacks Donald Trump, the left wing’s base likes it more. The problem with this is self-evident, we’ve got two different media universes that don’t overlap. Both of these media bases are incredibly lucrative businesses. Why would the left wing and the right wing change its media direction when both sides are making so much money and the audiences keep consuming what’s being created so well? Abraham Lincoln famously said a house divided against itself cannot stand. But what if this media house divided against itself can stand up perfectly, even as the country falls apart around it?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top