Do members of the supreme court tend to get along pretty well in general even though they have very different views on things?
From what I’ve read yes, they respect each other’s point of view even if they don’t necessarily agree. It’s probably a cordial atmosphere, similar to any professional working environment.
The office parties around the holidays can get pretty tense from what I’ve heard.
I hesitated to put this in general questions but after thinking about it I imagine a fair amount of research has likely gone into this.
According to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, they all get along just fine.
Justice Elena Kagan had this to say:
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia maintained a very good friendship despite strong ideological disagreements. They often traveled together, attended operas together, and dined with each other’s families.
I have read that Justices Elena Kagan and Samuel Alito are starting to form the same type of relationship, becoming good friends despite severe ideological differences.
If you don’t mean to restrict your question to the current members of the supreme court, then the answer is, “No, not always”. James Clark McReynolds was a notorious anti-Semite who refused to speak to the Jewish Louis Brandeis, even going so far as to leave the room whenever Brandeis himself spoke. He also refused to speak to, and in some cases even to be seen to be listening to, John Clarke, Benjamin Cardozo, and Felix Frankfurter. William O. Douglas was also reportedly not on speaking terms with Frankfurter.
It would be interesting to reflect back on past courts and what the times were like then.
Reportedly, Elena Kagan and Antonin Scalia, who were about as far apart philosophically as you can get,were close friends.
Scalia also likedthe liberal John Paul Stevens a lot more than he liked William Rehnquist, who was closer to Scalia philosophically.
William O. Douglas reportedly didn’t get along very well with anyone.
When you are dealing with rational intelligent people it is easy to see how very different ideologies can get along. If not rational all bets are off.
I assume they’ll have to introduce beer to the weekly case conference. That could be fun, though.
And a weight set.
Scalia and Ginsburg were very good friends (“best buddies”). It is alleged that he had a role in her appointment:
Both Scalia and Ginsburg were Shakespeare fans, sometimes incorporating Shakespearean quotes into their legal opinions. Although both of them thought “William Shakespeare” was a pseudonym or frontman, Scalia did not convince Ginsberg that his choice — Edward de Vere, 19th Lord High Chamberlain of England — was the actual author.
The conservative Scalia may have formed his opinion about the Authorship in part due to conversations with now-retired liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, who was a long-time “Oxfordian” (one who thinks de Vere was the principal author of the plays and sonnets).
Deceased Justice Blackmun was also an Oxfordian, and retired Justice O’Connor apparently agreed Oxford was a more likely candidate than Shakespeare himself. (The Authorship controversy is a very interesting topic but attempts to debate it at SDMB have devolved into uninformed people demonstrating their lack of information. Those who wasted a Google click at all, searched for “Debunk Oxfordians” which helps debunk arguments that the Oxfordians do not make. :smack: )
The easiest way to piss off a legal scholar is to agree with him/her, in my experience.