Scalia blasts 'judge moralists'
"... Scalia said he was saddened to see the Supreme Court deciding moral issues not addressed in the Constitution, such as abortion, gay rights and the death penalty. He said such questions should be settled by Congress or state legislatures beholden to the people.
"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," he said.
Scalia also railed against the principle of the "living Constitution," saying it has led the Senate to try to appoint so-called politically "moderate" judges instead of focusing on professional credentials and ability."
Right on!
"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," he said.
Scalia also railed against the principle of the "living Constitution," saying it has led the Senate to try to appoint so-called politically "moderate" judges instead of focusing on professional credentials and ability."
Right on!
posted by z @ 12:00 AM
1 Comments:
At 12:01 PM,
Rama said…
I also have issues with appointments being made with "moderate" judges. However, from the research I've done concerning tort law, most jurisdictions have nonpartisan elections, yet the judges are usually in the pockets of the plaintiffs or defense lawyers (the former tend to be democrats, the latter republicans). And so we are back at the same issue--is there such a thing as a "moderate" judge in the first place?
Both processes, elections and appointments, are flawed. I don't believe the Supreme Court should make moral rulings (yay Scalia for speaking out). But I also do not believe the Congress can make better decisions regarding moral lawmaking, at which point the issue of who is more "qualified" or "justified" to make these decisions is moot.
Post a Comment
<< Home