With those words, Judge Alito signaled his understanding of the judiciary and the role of judges. In doing so, he knew full well that this is the very issue around which controversy emerges every time a nomination is made to the Supreme Court.

Over the last several decades, the Supreme Court has assumed a role never envisioned by the founders of the American republic. Forfeiting the principle of judicial restraint, generations of activist judges have pushed a social agenda that, in their minds, would bring America into the modern age. Of course, the framers of the U. S. Constitution did not conceive of judges as legislators who would press their own agenda. To the contrary, the founders envisioned the Supreme Court as a final court of appeal, described as the "least dangerous branch" of government.

Phyllis Schlafly, a keen observer of the court, has warned that a cadre of judicial "supremacists" has used the federal courts to transform the culture. "The United States Constitution did not create judicial supremacy or consign us to be ruled by a judicial oligarchy," Mrs. Schlafly insists. "On the contrary, the Constitution separated the vast powers of the federal government into three branches--legislative, executive, and judicial--with an ingenious system of checks and balances so that each branch can serve as a continuing check on the others." Judicial activists understand the role of judges very differently. As Mrs. Schlafly explains, "The judicial supremacists refuse to be bound by the words of the United States Constitution or the intent of its Framers. Instead, they espouse the theory that the Constitution is a 'living document' which can change according to judicially directed 'evolution.'"

Similarly, Robert H. Bork argues that "the law has become the instrument of the intellectual classes that are opposed to middle class values and hold America in contempt." In recent years, Americans have been frustrated to see the federal courts, and especially the U. S. Supreme Court, reverse the will of the people as enacted through Congress, state legislatures, and voter initiatives.

For example, a measure adopted in the state of Colorado that held that special rights are not to be granted to any group on the basis of sexual orientation was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, even though the measure was overwhelmingly approved by the people of Colorado. Similarly, constitutional amendments adopted in several states intended to protect marriage and to prevent the recognition of same-sex marriages are threatened by activist courts who may well seize the opportunity once again to reject the will of the people.

Over the last half century, forces pushing for a revolution in America's social and cultural landscape have been largely unable to gain success through legislative action. They simply lack popular support for their proposals and have been thwarted in their efforts to force their revolution through popular politics. For example, pro-abortion forces would never have been able to force a legal authorization for virtually unrestricted abortion in all fifty states through legislative action. The only way they could force this agenda was to do so through judicial action, and activist judges responded with a cavalcade of invented rights and social policies.