U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, perhaps the most colorful member of the high court, is not shy about expressing his views on the Constitution.
It is regrettable that more Supreme Court justices – and more judges generally – do not embrace his very proper, modest view of the constitutional role of the courts, which he spelled out anew during a recent speech in Bozeman, Mont.
He rejected the destructive notion of a “living Constitution.” That’s a nice-sounding phrase, but in practice, a “living Constitution” is one that judges feel perfectly free to alter according to their personal political or moral views.
While judges are obviously entitled to their personal opinions on whatever subject, nothing in the Constitution permits them to substitute those views for the policies put in place by duly enacted laws and the principles enshrined in our Constitution.
The only proper way to alter the Constitution is the amendment process provided for in that document itself. Scalia noted that judicial usurpation of the amendment process is impermissible – although it occurs with appalling regularity. He mentioned examples such as the supposed “right” to abortion – a “right” nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
We appreciate Scalia’s faithful service on the high court. We lament that not all the justices subscribe to his correct, limited view of what courts are supposed to do.