Bristol, RI (LifeNews.com) -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia continues to educate the law students of America and, once again, presented his explanation that no right to abortion exists in the Constitution to students at Roger Williams University. Last month, Scalia told students at the University of Central Missouri the same thing.

Scalia said a legal right to an abortion is not found in the document that guides our judicial process.

If abortion advocates wanted to create a legitimate abortion right, they should rely on passing laws in the legislature rather than asking courts to unilaterally create one, he said.

“You want the right to abortion? Create it the way most rights are created in a democracy. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea — and pass a law,” Scalia said.

As he has before, Justice Scalia, who pro-life advocates hope will someday be one of the five votes on the high court to reverse Roe v. Wade, said the Constitution is not a living document that changes with the times.

According to a report in The Day newspaper, Scalia told the RWU law school students he didn't think the Senate would confirm him today as it did on a 98-0 vote decades ago.

“The most important thing is whether this person will write the new Constitution that you like,” Scalia said of today's politicized confirmation process. “If the court's rewriting the Constitution, it's an enormously powerful political body -- and its selection will be done in a political fashion."

In his speech last month, Scalia made the same point that the so-called right to abortion is nowhere found in the guiding document.

"The reality is the Constitution doesn't address the subject at all," Scalia said of abortion. "It is one of the many subjects not in the Constitution which is therefore left to democracy."

"If you want the right to an abortion, persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. If you feel the other way, repeal the law," he said.

During the speech, Scalia also rejected the idea that the Supreme Court is bound by precedent -- such as in the Dred Scott or Roe v. Wade cases.

"For me, perhaps most important of all, does the precedent allow me to function as a lawyer, which is what a judge is supposed to do?" he asked.