Why did Antonin Scalia oppose recognizing constitutional rights that are not explicitly listed in the Constitution?

Antonin Scalia opposed recognizing constitutional rights that are not explicitly listed in the Constitution because he believed such judicial recognition constituted judicial activism—the improper usurpation of legislative power by judges to create law rather than interpret it.1

Scalia championed originalism, a philosophy holding that the Constitution’s meaning is fixed to the common understanding of its text at the time of ratification. He argued that this method was essential to minimize the judiciary's role in resolving policy matters, which he believed should be left to democratic processes or formal constitutional amendment.12

By adhering to a strict reading of the text, Scalia sought to prevent judges from basing decisions on personal preferences or evolving social values, which he viewed as a threat to democratic governance. Consequently, he was generally unwilling to grant constitutional protections to "unenumerated rights," maintaining that issues falling outside the established constraints of the Bill of Rights and other constitutional provisions must be addressed through public deliberation rather than judicial decree.12