>It's completely possible—and I say preferable—to hold starkly contrasting political or legal views, but still like one another. We need more of that. Disagree

>It's completely possible—and I say preferable—to hold starkly contrasting political or legal views, but still like one another. We need more of that. Disagree. The system is confrontational; it's shaped this way so as to reduce the chance of buddy-buddy underdealings and negotiation. The system is confrontational so as to promote fairness and prevent bias. Creating yet another environment by which the judges can exert control over the law by winning personal favors among each other must be avoided. That's exactly why things are set up such way within the US government, Supreme Court not-withstanding. All that said : I have never considered the supreme court to be fair and unbiased. Compromising for the sake of cooperation, sure. Effective, definitely. > It does not appear that whatever friendship that existed between Scalia and Ginsburg impacted their rulings and dissents on the matters before the Court. You'd never really know. That's why it should probably be well avoided.