Federal Justice Courts and determining social issues

The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued that because courts are not elected representativebodies, they have no business determining certain critical social issues. He wrote:Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reect the policy views of a particularconstituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a crosssection of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of themsuccessful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City.Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not asingle Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a singleevangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of anydenomination. To allow [an important social issue] to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highlyunrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation withoutrepresentation: no social transformation without representation.Do you agree?