Ginsburg and Scalia, even if they did take a genuine interest in one another's friendship, had external considerations two average, everyday people wouldn't have. The image of the court, and its ability of folks with different world-views to come together and still respect each other when disagreeing-- it helps present an image of an impartial court. The functioning of SCOTUS depends on the legitimacy of its image. Many of our institutions function this way, but it is acutely important to the court.
Let's phrase this another way: if neither were SCOTUS justices, but mere acquaintances that came across one another at say, a party, and began discussing politics-- would they have become friends? No.
I believe they were friends prior to SCOTUS appointments when they were both on DC circuit. They were really big opera buffs. But in any case they had some exceptional traits that are not necessarily common.
really? because I am friends with quite a few people who I disagree with on political issues. I will even say those are some of the people I enjoying talking with the most (so long as we both agree to show respect to each other).
There's quite a bit of data supporting the fact that there are less moderates today and both sides are less civil to one another when compared to the past, mostly because echo chambers reduce our exposure to perspectives outside of our own, and in aggregate, it makes us less receptive when we rarely do encounter opposite beliefs.
