WASHINGTON, D.C. – United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told over 200 University of California students on Monday that judges should not make moral judgments, but instead interpret what the founders intended when they wrote the Constitution.
The justice’s comment at the University of California Washington Center was made after a number of students asked him about his conservative opinion on minority rights. Scalia — who is currently the longest serving justice on the nation’s highest court — told students that the founders were clear about protecting political and religious minorities, and it was the court’s role to expand upon their intentions.
“There are all sorts of minorities out there,” Scalia said. “What about child abusers? Now, are they to have special protections? I don’t think it’s up to judges to prowl about in titling other minorities to special privileges to an exception from the general rule of democracy.”
Scalia spent most of his time explaining his judicial philosophy called “originalism,” which means interpreting law according to the context in how it was written.
“You don’t read Shakespeare in the language of today,” he said. “You use a glossary to understand what he meant at that time.”
He went on to discredit the notion that the Constitution should be adapted for modern interpretation.
“But somehow for the Constitution, we governed with the notion ‘Oh, the Constitution changes,’” he said. “It changes to reflect the evolving standards of decency of a maturing society. That’s rather Pollyannish.”
Scalia entertained the audience throughout the night with anecdotes about his job.
“Sometimes I ask questions because I’m bored,” he said of his inquiries during hearings. “I ask them to stay awake.”
UCSD junior Ariel Teshuva asked Scalia how he applied “originalism” to phenomena like equal rights for women and homosexual couples, when such terms were not in existence during the writing of the Constitution.
Scalia said that at the time the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868, homosexuality was outlawed by all states.
He said the law’s original meaning never provided for homosexual rights, let alone homosexual conduct.
“I think the way we think about things changes,” said Teshuva, a political science and history double major. “Things have different meanings for different people. There is no original meaning.”
Yet Scalia reiterated the courts should have no judgment on morality. He said that new laws or amendments can be passed to reflect changes in society, and that a strong democracy should not depend on rules decided upon by just nine justices. He even highlighted the homogeneity of the justices as a lack of their capacities.
“You ask nine unrepresentative lawyers, all from Harvard and Yale… It just boggles the mind why any society would want these profound moral questions to be decided by people who have no particular expertise in that area,’’ Scalia said.
