Is it? Are Supreme Court Justices supposed to be compromising, or are they supposed to interpret the written law?
Would you feel the same way if a liberal, pro-choice, pro-lgbt rights justice said the same thing about there being fundamental differences that can’t be compromised?
I think it comes down to what those things are rather then not compromising. Not compromising on human rights, for instance, is great. Not compromising on if you can openly hate gay people due to your religion, not so great. If you feel child labour is required for a functional society, also not great. So it’s chilling when someone in a high level of rule making says they don’t believe they can compromise on their hatred.
Add to that they believe they are being persecuted and that their German heritage will explain how they will eventually react, and it becomes more chilling.
Sure, so the issue is not so much that a supreme court justice is saying such things, but which specific one is saying due to the beliefs he holds.
