Scalia blasts 'judge moralists' in law school speech

SFGate reports U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia blasted what he called "judge moralists" and the infusion of politics into judicial appointments during a Monday night lecture that capped a day of activities celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Chapman University School of Law.... Speaking before a packed auditorium, Scalia said he was saddened to see the U.S. Supreme Court deciding moral issues not addressed in the Constitution, such as abortion, assisted suicide, gay rights and the death penalty. He said such questions should be settled by Congress or state legislatures beholden to the people.

This is absolutely correct. Our founding fathers set up a system of checks and balances.The Dems love it when the judges make laws they could not get passed by the legislature, but they were upset in the Terri Schievo case when the legislature tried to change decisions made in the judicial branch. And they would be upset if the Executive Branch tried to make laws or decide cases. If a judge wants to make a new law, he should resign from the bench, and run for the Legislature, because that is where laws are made.

"I am questioning the propriety — indeed, the sanity — of having a value-laden decision such as this made for the entire society ... by unelected judges," Scalia said. "Surely it is obvious that nothing I learned during my courses at Harvard Law School or in my practice of law qualifies me to decide whether there ought to be, and therefore is, a fundamental right to abortion or assisted suicide," he said.

John Hawkins blogged he sure didn't hold back on what he thought about having the courts decide matters better left to elected legislators.

Betsy Newmark blogged This is how I know that I just can't see eye to eye with someone of the other view. I'm all for representative government even when our representatives are frustrating, self-centered, and downright dumb. As Churchill said, it's the worst form of government there is except for all the others. And I want to see these decisions made in legislatures where the people can vote out those they disagree with and change their minds and adapt laws to their local circumstances. There are some things that are fundamental rights and that is why we have a Bill of Rights and an amendment procedure. If assisted suicide is a fundamental right, pass a law. And if you're afraid that future legislators would change it, pass an amendment. That's hard to do. You have to persuade a whole lot Americans that they should agree with you, not just five justices. And that's the way it should be. As the Astute Blogger said yesterday, would people be so willing to believe in a "living Constitution" if all the courts had conservative judges? Wouldn't they then be all in favor of having decisions set in concrete so that those conservative judges couldn't interpret a living, breathing constitution in their own lights? Leave these decisions to the branches of government that are closest to the people.