Antonin Scalia is that rare creature—a judge who thinks that judges should not allow their "enlightened" moral views to usurp decisions of our democratically elected representatives. How radical is that.
“I don't think that judges should do anything but interpret the meaning of texts that have been democratically adopted and give them the meaning they bore when the people adopted them," he told me. "But what I have noticed increasingly in recent years is that judges - not just in my country, but internationally - have taken on this function of being moral arbiters for the world."
Judges have arrogated that function to the detriment of both politics and the judicial system.
"If judges are routinely providing the society's definitive answers to moral questions on which there is ample room for debate - rather than merely determining the meaning, when enacted, of democratically adopted texts - then judges will be made politically accountable."As he explained: "I am not happy about the intrusion of politics into the judicial appointment process in my country. But frankly, I prefer it to the alternative, which is government by judicial aristocracy."
“Government by judicial aristocracy”. We’re heading that way in Canada.
Previous related posts:









Posts

