​A call for courtesy in rigorous debate

United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who had served on the bench of the nation’s highest court for the past 30 years, passed away this weekend. Justice Scalia was famous for his controversial but airtight dissenting opinions that helped focus Supreme Court debates on interpretation of the original meaning of the constitution. A solidly conservative justice, Scalia was renowned for the high quality of his majority opinions and the total acumen of his dissents. He was a husband and father of nine children who rose from a childhood raised by immigrant parents to hold the highest American office of his chosen profession.

In spite of the respect due his office and achievements, within minutes of his death being announced Justice Scalia was being satirized as a blockade to social justice in publications like The Onion, and tweets rang out extolling his death and outright wishing him a place in hell. Within hours, the discussion of his death became centered around the politics of who would replace him, and by the end of the day, the Republican presidential candidates vied in their debate to be the most unconditionally opposed candidate to President Obama’s nomination to fill the seat in his remaining year. More decorum was shown when even staunch opponents of Scalia’s ideals, like the Reverend Al Sharpton, asked for decency in the aftermath to Justice Scalia’s death. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, with whom his opinions rarely aligned, further described him as her “best buddy.” His death is a loss for a profession that he made better through his passion and consistency. We believe the human behind the opinions deserves better in his posthumous analysis.

The appointment of Scalia’s replacement will be an important one with several highly important cases that may be reargued in the Court’s current term. A promise by the senate majority leader to block nominations by President Obama in order to await the results of the upcoming elections rests on nebulous claims that “lame duck” presidents should not appoint Justices who will serve life terms. In reality, with the senate controlled by Republicans, it seems unlikely that any nominees will be able to be confirmed, making the appointment of the next justice fundamental to the current presidential race and possibly changing the landscape of the election.

On our own campus, we have seen opinion columns on both the right and left result in active comment threads filled with ad hominem attacks and sometimes void of intellectual engagement with the columnists' ideas. We seem to exist more and more in a culture where polemic is the only tone we feel cuts through the din. The feedback is such that the only audible response is more of the same or silence compared to the majority du jour.

If ever there was a way to move past ideological polarization and consider viewpoints in opposition of our own, perhaps it is this. We certainly need not agree with the viewpoints of Justice Scalia or Bader Ginsburg, but we should attempt to deeply know those opinions, respecting those who have achieved so much and inspired so many and take a cue from the deep friendship of these two American ideologues. It is acceptable, and even admirable to have studied intensely enough to earn strong opinions. Until we have truly undertaken this study, perhaps we would all do better to work towards consuming more than we produce in an appropriate balance and focus on considered debate over easily shared one-liners.