“Scalia and Ginsburg: The end of a beautiful friendship,” by Megan Daum of the Los Angeles Times. Published on February 18, 2016.
Megan Daum’s article, “Scalia and Ginsburg: The end of a beautiful friendship (2016),” argues that the once strong friendship between Scalia and Ginsburg — who were ideologically polar opposites — is what society has failed to mirror in recent years. Daum supports her argument by pointing out the efficacy of befriending our ideological enemies and why doing this action hardly occurs. Daum’s purpose is to use Ginsburg’s friendship as an example of an effective and helpful friendship in order to remind the audience that despite our differences, politics does not need to drive us apart. Taking into account Daum’s liberal tone and use of liberal examples, it is implied that she appeals to a young audience.
Contrary to what one of Daum’s readers may think, she uses an intro sentence that pokes fun at both parties. She describes the GOP as preventing Obama from nominating a justice and the Democrats as trying to not “smack their lips” regarding the aftermath of Scalia’s death. But, if you aren’t sure Scalia or Ginsburg is, Daum easily describes them both as ideological opposites by using support: Scalia believes homosexuality is equivalent to murder while Ginsburg had recently officiated a same-sex wedding. The purpose of these two paragraphs is to establish an introducing ground for the reader.
Daum lists most of the events that Scalia and Ginsburg were involved in outside of the Supreme Court: visiting opera performances and riding an elephant together. Their relationship was so strong that an opera depicting it was created. This is useful in the next paragraph in which Daum includes a quote from the opera that Ginsburg had said in response to Scalia’s death: “we are different, we are one.” Finally, Daum uses the mutual support between Clinton and Sanders to describe how we must follow their shoes.