New England School of Law
Federalist Society

New England School of Law
Federalist Society

154 Stuart Street
Boston, MA 02116

The New England School of Law Federalist Society Blog is a weblog written and managed by students at New England School of Law in Boston. The views expressed here reflect the views of the authors alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of New England School of Law or its affiliates or the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies and its affiliates.

Sunday, May 01, 2005

Article on J. Scalia

Scalia criticizes judges who believe Constitution should be reinterpreted as society changes
By Bob LowryASSOCIATED PRESS
(Original available here)

LEXINGTON, Va. – Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia criticized judges who believe the Constitution should be reinterpreted as society changes, saying that philosophy allows courts to bend the law to suit a political agenda.

Scalia also said increasing partisanship among judges was one reason why the Senate questions judicial nominations about their personal views on issues such as abortion and confirms only candidates regarded as "moderate."

"A moderate judge or justice is what most people like," Scalia said, but judges' personal views should not matter since judges are responsible for upholding the law.

Scalia, speaking Friday at Washington and Lee University, argued that judges too often read rights into the Constitution on issues such as abortion and assisted suicide at the expense of the democratic process.

"It's making our system more rigid, not more flexible. It's simply irrational," Scalia said.
He called himself and Justice Clarence Thomas the only two "originalists" on the high court. He said his "originalist" philosophy is not a conservative-versus-liberal issue, adding,
"Conservatives are just as willing to distort the original meaning of the Constitution as liberals."
Scalia noted that when the populace supported giving women the right to vote, Congress passed the 19th Amendment. He said judges now will read a new voting right into the Constitution's
equal-protection clause.

"You know if that came up today, we would not amend the Constitution," he said.

© Copyright 2005 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.