Scalia vs. the rest of them

Scalia took a pretty harsh stance against what he sees as a corruption of what the court is supposed to be doing. I alluded to this in my post about Roper v. Simmons below.

Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down the juvenile death penalty, calling it the latest example of politics on the court that has made judicial nominations an increasingly bitter process.

In a 35-minute speech Monday, Scalia said unelected judges have no place deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty. The court's 5-4 ruling March 1 to outlaw the juvenile death penalty based on "evolving notions of decency" was simply a mask for the personal policy preferences of the five-member majority, he said.

"If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again," Scalia told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. "You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility."

"Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?" he said.

Which is how I believe judges should act when deciding cases. I think the President does as well, as he has said that he wants more constructionists on the court.
One other note. Check out what the AP writer inserts at the end of the article. After Scalia leaves complaining about all the photographers, the writer ends with this:

During a speech last year in Hattiesburg, Miss., a deputy federal marshal demanded that an Associated Press reporter and another journalist erase recordings of the justice's remarks.

The justice later apologized. The government conceded that the U.S. Marshals Service violated federal law in the confrontation and said the reporters and their employers were each entitled to $1,000 in damages and attorneys' fees.

Oh my gosh. What the heck does that have to do with anything else in this article? Not a thing. It looks like the journalist, Hope Yen, wants something in the article to make Scalia look bad, like he's against freedom of the press or something, to de-legitimize what he's saying. Chalk up another example of poor journalism and poor journalistic ethics.