Justice Scalia, when he's not battling the freedom of the press or civil rights, occassionally has something honest to say. Today was one of those days:
The more your courts become policy-makers, the less sense it makes to have them entirely independent... Take the abortion issue. Whichever side wins, in the courts, the other side feels cheated. I mean, you know, there's something to be said for both sides.
The court could have said, 'No, thank you.' The court have said, you know, 'There is nothing in the Constitution on the abortion issue for either side.' It could have said the same thing about suicide, it could have said the same thing about ... you know, all the social issues the courts are now taking. (AP)
I may not agree with where Scalia wants to bring this argument, but it seems to lead to one place: Our justices are making a lot of decisions that they cannot adequately support with the constitution. In other words, they're flubbing and playing into the hands of the politicians who put them into power.
Now that Scalia admits that the Constitution does not back his position on abortion, I'd be curious to hear what other positions he has taken that he doesn't feel are supported by the Constitution... most obviously perhaps a huge mistake made in late 2000?