Supreme Court Appointments

[maplesyrup]

Louise Charron, Rosalie Abella named to top court posts

These appointments have the fingerprints of Justice Minister Cotler all over them.

[maplesyrup]

Canada's Supreme Court has an impeccable international reputation, unlike that of the US whose court has beeen politicised to the point where they have been discredited in the eyes of the world.

[Cartman]

I am not very familiar with Charron, but I am surprised that Abella was appointed.

[maplesyrup]

Well, one thing for sure, apart from the Foothills, that is the end of any more debate on same-sex marriage. Any opposition is toast as they say at breakfast!

[DAC]

Any opposition is toast as they say at breakfast!

Unfortunately, likely to be literally true. A despotic Supreme Court will not hesitate to punish dissent. Goodbye freedom.

[maplesyrup]

Questioning of court nominees unacceptable: Cotler

I am willing to bet that whether or not you approve of this so-called new process depends entirely on whether or not you like the new nominees.

Martin should never have opened this can of worms, because obviously the Conservatives don't like the nominees, so of course they don't like the process.

All this has done is given the Conservatives another opoortunity to whine.

[maplesyrup]

-from the Globe

How should Canada's Supreme Court justices be selected?

By the prime minister

1497 votes (14 %)

By a parliamentary committee

6046 votes (57 %)

Other

3086 votes (29 %)

I guess most Canadians think our PM has too much power.

[Argus]

Canada's Supreme Court has an impeccable international  reputation, unlike that of the US whose court has beeen politicised to the point where they have been discredited in the eyes of the world.

Such irony. In point of fact Canada's Supreme Court has _NO_ international reputation whatsoever. The American Supreme Court, like that of the UK has a history of brilliant legal judgements, of wisdom, of rendering judgements with keen insight and eloquence. The history of both those courts is rife with the most learned, most passionate, most intensely intelligent written justifications for both majority and minority decisions that scholars the world over have studied them with awe. Canada's Supreme Court is virtually unknown, with no great history of scholarly, persuasive, thoughtful or eloquent judgements. Unlike those other courts, our supreme court has judges appointed for the crassest of political purposes. When you need a one legged black lesbian from Alberta, after all, you don't get a lot of choices. So by and large, the justices of the Canadian Supreme Court have been people of no great scholarship or wisdom, of little eloquence or persuasion. It is a court of politicians, bland, dull, whey-faced; a court of people appointed with no interest in their intelligence or scholarship, appointed entirely due to crass politics, to who the government can score political points with, who they owe favours to, and what kind of decisions they want rendered.

[Argus]

Louise Charron, Rosalie Abella named to top court posts

These appointments have the fingerprints of Justice Minister Cotler all over them.

You mean the Irwin Cottler who has no particular interest in honesty? When Cottler proclaimed so righteously that the appointments had nothing to do with gender or their positions on same sex marriage, well, I doubt there was a single person in the room that didn't think "liar", or worse. There was not a single journalist there who didn't know Cottler was lying through his teeth.

So are you suggesting that these women are dishonest, as well, liars, like Cottler?

[Argus]

Well, one thing for sure, apart from the Foothills, that is the end of any more debate on same-sex marriage. Any opposition is toast as they say at breakfast! 

I am quite sure you're correct, but I wonder at your evident delight in what is clearly nothing more than stacking the court.

As has been stated before, Canada is no longer a parliamentary democracy, but a constitutional democracy. The Constitution is the ultimate authority, so if you can get whatever decision you want out of the court simply by appointing the right people to it then - where is the rule of law? In point of fact, we have no rule of law, for the law will be whatever the people on the court say it is.

The Supreme Court says gays must have equal rights because the Constitution says so. Or not. Change the makeup of the court, and you get an entirely different position. This is the rule of law?

And you speak joyfully of stacking the court in this manner to get the decisions you want. Such disdain for democracy!

The fact is that Canada moved from parliamentary democracy to constitutional democracy without adding any of the safeguards other constitutional democracies have. The government in power can and does appoint anyone they want to the judiciary for whatever reason they want, including family, friends, and failed members of parliament. And if it wants to stack the court to get the decisions it wants there is absolutely nothing to stop it from doing so.

However, why should anyone respect the decisions of a Supreme Court when it is obvious their decisions are biased and political? Stacking the court robs it of any moral authority as a neutral, independant arbiter of legal fact and turns it into just another political body - but one we aren't allowed to vote for.

[kimmy]

I am willing to bet that whether or not you approve of this so-called new process depends entirely on whether or not you like the new nominees.

What a silly comment. I think that no matter what your political stripes or your feelings about these two nominees, you have to recognize that this "new, open process" is a big fat sham.

Prime Minister Paul Martin has long promised a more transparent process to nominate Supreme Court judges and has been criticized for delays.

So what does he do? He comes up with a process where he appoints two judges. That's it. The non-binding hearing, the committee interview where the candidates aren't even present, it's all window-dressing.

It leaves me wondering how stupid they think Canadians are that they won't recognize this for what it is.

Martin should never have opened this can of worms, because obviously the Conservatives don't like the nominees, so of course they don't like the process.

But the poll you just posted shows that only 14% of Canadians approved of the PM having the having the only say in the matter. (in other words, only 14% of Canadians like the process. Surely you don't believe 86% of Canadians are Conservatives )

Martin has told Canadians that he would change it, but obviously he didn't change anything. He just added a meaningless side-show.

-kimmy

[maplesyrup]

Argus.........the US Supreme Court not political. Absoulute nonsense.

The US Supreme Court credible? Don't make me laugh. The Supreme court deliberations concerning the last US presidential election was a farce, and the entire world watched their comedy act. Basically the current US Supreme Court has done more to discredit the judiciary than any previous group.

Of course appointees smack of politics, how could they not be. They are appointed by politicians.

They are just like any other group in society - representing the good, the bad, and the ugly. Nothing special.

[maplesyrup]

Who would you expect Martin to appoint? Someone who is against same-sex marriage, when most people in the country have moved on from this issue. It's a done deal, court or no court. Isn't there something of consequence to discuss? I am so tired of hearing about someone's sexuality. Who the F*** cares?

[playfullfellow]

The whole process for picking our judges is a complete farse. One person gets to decide whom has the ultimate power in Canada and that is BS. Of course the PM should be able to make recommendations but ultimately the decision should be up to a parlimnetary panel made up percentile representation from each party. By this I mean, if the liberals have 40% of the seats, then they can send 40% of the panel. Each party would be equally represented in this manner. This panel should also be allowed to reject any and all recommendations the PM makes. Maybe, this way we may get more center oriented judges than judges who swing left or right. The current system is nothing but a sham because the PM can stack the court with judges who lean a certain way and then just shrug when people don't agree with the courts decision by saying he had nothing to do with it. The current system also allows for no checks on who the PM decides should be a judge. MS has inderectly called the US a facist country in another thread but we live in a democratic dictatorship in Canada.

[Argus]

Argus.........the US Supreme Court not political. Absoulute nonsense.

I did not say the US supreme court nominations couldn't be political. Clarence Thomas is a perfect example. The Bush government, and before them Reagan, did their best to stack the court with individuals on the far right. However, they have a process in place which makes that more difficult. If they had had the unrestricted power of Paul Martin they would have appointed absolute extremist religious nuts to the court. As it was, they had to tone down their nominations to those who had some credibility, and even then they had to be careful.

The US Supreme Court credible? Don't make me laugh. The Supreme court deliberations concerning the last US presidential election was a farce, and the entire world watched their comedy act.

Yes, well, your disrespect of the US Supreme Court arises from you disrespect for the US generally. There was nothing wrong with their deliberations regarding the US elections. The law was followed. There were no creative interpretations, as we routinely see from Canada's courts.

Basically the current US Supreme Court has done more to discredit the judiciary than any previous group.

You will find no one much supporting that other than other anti-Americans and extremists.

[Cartman]

This link is not about the Supreme Court, but it does deal with irregularities in our justice system (JP's) and I think you might find it quite interesting.

http://www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archives/040309.html#jps

[Guest eureka]

I see this topic has the potential for more bias from the participants. Already the postings are split on the lines of the Reform ideas and the ideas of democrats.

The Canadian Supreme Court should have been left strictly alone. Never in its history has there been a Court that could be accused of being anything but impartial. Never has there been a single judge who has been tainted with the claims of political bias. Probably nowhere in the world has there been such a record.

The nes process does bring politics into the Court. So far, it does not appear that it will make the appointments political: it has, however, brought us political grandstanding from the party that would destroy the Canadian constitutional regime.

Canadian SCC Judgements have been a model of reason and articulate presentation of law. The scholarship is of the highest order. This flows from the non politcal nature of appointments. One consequence of change will be the refusal of the highest quality candidates to accept nomination. This, above all, Canada has had in the past.

For Argus, read some of the early judgments of the SCC - those that were overturned by the Privy Council and put Canada into its present jurisdictional mess. Reason and intelligence was with the Canadian Court.

The American SCC has a long and troubled history of political partisanship and of deliberately biased political decisions. The nature of the selection process makes inevitable political partisanship. The history of the Courts is that of liberal (loosely used) courts and conservative courts: of progressive and reactionary courts which reflect the nature of the Presidencies.

It took, for example, to very recent times for its Bill of Rights to made applicable to the States and to individuals - it is not quite ther, BTW, and some parts of the Bill are still only applicable to the Federal Government. Roghts due to the 14th. Amendment "due process" provision have been affirmed as universal by some courts and rolled back the others,

Look at the "Slaughterhouse cases of 1873 to find a Supreme Court that rolled back rights by denying the applicability of due process. Look to "Freedom of Speech" guarantees in the american Bill. It was not until 1927 that this freedpm was extended to cover State laws, and then only partially. It took until very recent times for Freedom of Speech to be guaranteed in the USA.

Then, in spite of so- called emancipation, it was not until 1965 and the Voting Rights Act that Blacks actually received an unrestricted right to vote.

All this is due to the Constitutional Position of the American Court and the selection process. We have no such problems.

The process that does need some tinkering with in Canada is that of the Lower Courts. There, there is political cronyism in the appointments and incompetence in some number of judges. I do not suggest any sort of public process since that always seems to lead to politicisation. The appointments, I think, should be made by Provincial and Federal Attornry Generals in consultation with and on recommendations by, the Provincial Bar Associaitions.

[Argus]

I see this topic has the potential for more bias from the participants. Already the postings are split on the lines of the Reform ideas and the ideas of democrats.

I take it your definition of "democrat" is people who don't believe in freedom or the right to elect their leaders.

The Canadian Supreme Court should have been left strictly alone. Never in its history has there been a Court that could be accused of being anything but impartial.

You just don't get it, do you? When Parliement was supreme, there was no real reason for the government of the day, virtually always a majority, to stack the court with its own partisans. But after the Trudeau constitution gave the Supreme Court the right to rewrite laws, to force its demands on government, the Liberals quickly realized they needed to put reliable people there - people who could reasonably be relied upon to make the kinds of findings the Liberal Party wanted. And so it has consistently worked to stack the court with people noted not for any great degree of wisdom, legal scholarship or eloquence, but with liberals. Lately, a deeper understanding of what can be achieved with loyal people on the SC has led the to government stack it not simply with "liberals", but with liberal activists in order to "force" the government into doing things which would otherwise have too high a political cost, both in Canada and within the party itself.

The two recent appointees owe absolutely nothing to wisdom or legal knowledge, and everything to the fact they are known to be strong supporters of the Liberal party's social policies, especially on gay rights. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. And anyone who expects unbiased judgement from either of them is unbelievably naive.

Canadian SCC Judgements have been a model of reason and articulate presentation of law. The scholarship is of the highest order.

Historically? Decades back? Certainly no one sane would say that about today's SCC. Today's SCC justices decide cases according to their personal beliefs and opinions, and then take a look at the actual law to see if they can somehow explain their personal beliefs in terms of law. Sometimes they do this poorly, and it's obvious that they really aren't referencing the law or Constitution at all except as an excuse for their personal beliefs.

Now some people evidently like it that laws and policy are decided by unelected, unapproachable people who can act without any consideration for the will of the people. Apparently you've chosen to call such people "democrats".

That's an interesting take on things but rather inconsistent with reality and logic.

[August1991]

Very, very interesting thread.

[maplesyrup]

not for any great degree of wisdom, legal scholarship or eloquence,

Argus, it sounds like your definition of wisdom is anyone who is not Liberal. What crap. Just a cheap shot with absolutely not a shred of substance to back up the load of manure you keep shoveling out on a regular basis.

I know , I know, plus ca change but sometimes one needs to say screw that expression. We live in a changing world. For example, personally I could care less about the issue, but same-sex marriage is a done deal, and it will be shortly in the US as well. It is time to move on on some of these issues. They have been milked to death.

Why don't we direct our surpls energy to devising ways to deflect asteroids which may pummel us some day, eh? It reminds me of Quebec separation - a complete waste of time for all concerned.

[Guest eureka]

POarliament is supreme. Anyone who thinks otherwise has spent too long listening to the self-aggrandizing drivel of Manning and Harper. Notjing at all has changed except that Parliament now has to be a little more careful that it does not pass into law legislation that infringes on the freedoms you think you would have under an American style regime.

I posted that information about the American experience to give some indication of what we would experience if those who would assault the Parliamentary system get what they wish. The American Bill of Rights still is not entirely applicable to any entity but the Federal Government and that is mostly because of the Courts there. Even the famed "fifth Amendment" is not always able to be used.

The references to the two new appointees as incompetent and Liberal hacks (a precis of the words) is not slanderous; it is silly: It betrays ignorance of the process. Appoinyments are woth the consideration and advice of the Bae Associations amongst other guarantees of competence and impartiality.

I would like to see some of the instances where recent Supreme Court decisions have been superior to Parliament's wishes: I would like to see how that, if it were true, could be reconciled with the equally ridiculous claim that these are Liberal Party lackeys.

I can give an instance where the Supreme Court follows wishes of politicians, unfortunately. However, I consider this a wrong reading of the Court in its obligation to interpret laws in the light of changing social circumstances.

The example is that of former Chief Justice Brian Dickson who said that the Court interprets the laws of Quebec as though the "Distinct Society Clause" were entrenched in the Constitution. This is why I warned in another thread that the idea of Distinct Society for any province is dangerous and not a reflection of culture. It is a recipe for repression of groups.

I will say the same of any change in the Appointment process. Be careful that you really know what you wish for fear that you may get it.

[Argus]

What crap. Just a cheap shot with absolutely not a shred of substance to back up the load of manure you keep shoveling out on a regular basis.

I think you should attach this to the bottom of every posting you make, Maple. Or maybe at the top, as a warning to anyone who might otherwise waste their time reading your infantile snivelling.

[Argus]

POarliament is supreme. Anyone who thinks otherwise has spent too long listening to the self-aggrandizing drivel of Manning and Harper.

Parliament was, in the past, the final authority on what was and what wasn't constitutional. That has now changed and the SC is the final judge. In addition, the SC has gotten into the habit of writing and rewriting laws, of "reading in" things the writers of the constitution never intended to be put there. Now it is true that much of this could be aleviated by a strong, democratically oriented government. Unfortunately, we don't have one.

Notjing at all has changed except that Parliament now has to be a little more careful that it does not pass into law legislation that infringes on the freedoms you think you would have under an American style regime.

You mean like, uh, freedom of speech? of expression? Yes, God forbid we should have those terrible "American" style freedoms in Canada.

The references to the two new appointees as incompetent and Liberal hacks (a precis of the words) is not slanderous; it is silly: It betrays ignorance of the process. Appoinyments are woth the consideration and advice of the Bae Associations amongst other guarantees of competence and impartiality.

The Canadian Bar association has never, to my knowledge, done anything but fawn over whomever is chosen by the government for the Supreme Court. I think you could choose the dumbest ambulance chasers in Dildo, Newfoundland and the Canadian Bar Association would wet itself in its rush to praise their towering legal accumen. You'll forgive me, but I don't consider the various bar associations as anything more than mutual adoration societies set up to protect the rights and privilages - and above all the profits - of lawyers. As for your glorious "process", everyone knew who the two appointees would be the instant the previous holders of the jobs resigned. It was patently obvious that these two, due to their gender, their geographic locale, and their strong support of liberal causes, especially gay rights, would be the two chosen. Every journal and news organ which speculated on it prior to the announcement had them as numbers one and two on the list.

If appointments were made due to the wisdom and legal scholarship of the people involved it would not be so blatantly obvious who would be chosen well before the fact.

I don't believe any other constitutional democracy has as week a vetting process for its supreme court as Canada has.

I would like to see some of the instances where recent Supreme Court decisions have been superior to Parliament's wishes:

If by "parliament" you mean "Liberal parliament" such instances would be difficult to find as the SCC generally renders the decision the Liberal Party wants them to decide.

[Guest eureka]

You say it all when you say to my knowledge since your knowledge is not apparent.

The Supreme Court has always been the final arbiter and that is its purpose. The Court decides whether an action of government is constitutional and there is no democracy any other way. It is for Parliament to overrule or correct its legislation accordingly. Do you not like the idea of a Rule of Law?

Nothing has changed and the SCC cannot make law or amend law: it can only rule on the constitutionally of Acts of Parliament.

It is almost amusing to read the constant euphoria about the possibility of an American style "checks and balances" while a far superior check is denigrated. Almost, I would say, because it is too sad a reflection on the unthinking criticisms.

I agree with you only on the incestuous nature of the legal system in total. However, that has nothing to do woth this issue where it is in the interests of everyone except renegade politicians to have a competent and impartial Court. The Bar Associations do, indeed, have a substantial say in the appoint,ents and it would be well to leave political grandstanding out of the process.

[Argus]

You say it all when you say to my knowledge since your knowledge is not apparent.

Would you care to try that in English?

Nothing has changed and the SCC cannot make law or amend law: it can only rule on the constitutionally of Acts of Parliament.

It can alter laws, not only striking them down but adding to them, expanding them or changing them as it strikes their whimsy. That is making law.

It is almost amusing to read the constant euphoria about the possibility of an American style "checks and balances" while a far superior check is denigrated. Almost, I would say, because it is too sad a reflection on the unthinking criticisms.

To begin with, I haven't seen any great enthusiasm for the American style "checks and balances" only a call FOR checks and balances. At the moment, there are NONE. If the government in power chooses to appoint raving lunatics from the extreme left or right, or whatever, nothing whatever can stop them, or even delay them.

I agree with you only on the incestuous nature of the legal system in total. However, that has nothing to do woth this issue where it is in the interests of everyone except renegade politicians to have a competent and impartial Court.

Which, at the moment, we do not have, due those "renegade" politicians called "Liberals".