He was a consistent jurist; he was enthusiastic and lively; he was best friends with Ruth Bader Ginsburg; he was steadfast and sincere in his beliefs.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend a number of years ago about his friends and which, if any of them, could be considered 'nice'. (Most of our mutual friends are nice; most of his are questionable :).)
The division comes into play over the superficial usage of 'nice' which describes people who are overtly pleasant and polite. These are good conversationalists who do not stir the pot in social situations. But there's the deeper sense of 'nice' which involves a spiritual generosity that goes beyond many people. To be truly nice, there must be an intentional care to not harm others, regardless of a personal relationship. Nice people value their friends, their relationships (with people and the environment) and they behave in accordance with their values. A 'nice' vegetarian avoids leather goods for example. Using this definition, nice people are not obligated to be pleasant but nice people make the very best friends. (By the way, nice doesn't include rigid or judgemental. Many evangelical and fundamentalist religious followers fail in this. I fail when I judge members of religious communities.)
Going back to Antonin Scalia, many of the articles written about him since his death focus on his superficial niceness. But his rulings as a Supreme Court Justice and his legal philosophy run opposite of the deeper meaning of nice.
I actually prefer a president who is nice in the sense they value much of what I value but not nice in that they are ruthless in fighting to achieve what I want to achieve. But on the Supreme Court, we should have properly nice Justices; humanitarian jurists with impeccable judicial scholarship who interpret the Constitution in a manner meaningful to the issues of today. The late Justice Scalia failed in this regard. Cross your fingers and hope his replacement will be better.
