Scalia: Judicial Independence Not an Absolute Virtue

Justice Antonin Scalia has been speaking out on the role of judges and the courts, and sees problems with courts continuing to accept and rule on cases involving social issues:

Deeply controversial issues like abortion and suicide rights have nothing to do with the Constitution, and unelected judges too often choose to find new rights at the expense of the democratic process, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Saturday.

Scalia, during a talk on the judiciary sponsored by the National Italian American Foundation, dismissed the idea of judicial independence as an absolute virtue. He noted that dozens of states, since the mid-1800s, have chosen to let citizens elect their judges.

"You talk about independence as though it is unquestionably and unqualifiably a good thing," Scalia said. "It may not be. It depends on what your courts are doing."

Scalia added, "The more your courts become policy-makers, the less sense it makes to have them entirely independent."

In California some state court judges (including the Supreme Court) are appointed by the governor, but later have to face the voters for reconfirmation. Federal judges, on the other hand, are appointed for life and removing a judge is a very difficult business. Even removing a judge through impeachment doesn't mean much if he can just go get himself elected to Congress, as Alcee Hastings did. There's talk that a Speaker Pelosi would remove Jane Harman from the Intelligence Committee and replace her with Hastings. Think about that for awhile.

I wouldn't mind seeing a little less independence in the federal judiciary. If they had to answer to somebody once in awhile, maybe they wouldn't make so many dumb decisions.