Gazizza.Net

At UD, Justice Scalia illustrates 'originalist' view

The Trenton native, appointed by President Reagan in 1986, holds to an "originalist" view of constitutional interpretation. He looks for the original meaning of the document, rather than reading it through an ever-changing contemporary lens as the "living document" school of interpretation would.

To put it another way, Scalia interprets the Constitution by actually reading it, rather than as according to his own opinions. A "living" Constitution is no Constitution at all, since any meaning the person wants can be read into it. Who can forget the Supreme Court declaring the death penalty unconstitutional in the 1970s, even though the Constitution expressly refers to capital punishment multiple times? A judge's responsibility is to interpret the law, not to write it. If a judge is interested in writing law, than they are honor-bound to resign their position and run for legislative office where the writing of laws is properly done.

"You must drive from your mind that every stupid law is unconstitutional," he said. "Laws can be stupid but constitutional. There are innumerable laws like that."

And that's the point. Too many judged see their view as correcting mistakes made by the Legislature. A law may be stupid, but if it doesn't violate the Constitution, a judge doesn't have the authority to override it on a whim, although many do just that. Judges need to remember that they are one person or part of a small group of people, especially when compared to a legislature which holds committee hearings, receives phone calls and letters from constituents, meets with experts and many other discussions of bills before they are enacted as laws. We should put our faith in that process rather than a small hearing with just a few representatives of two opposing sides present.

Judges need to rule only in the clearest situation of wrong-doing and minimize the impact of their decisions. Let the political process handle as much as possible. When judges attempt to do too much, the country gets divided. (See Roe v. Wade.)