Your Thoughts of the Supreme Court of Canada

[square]

What do you think about the Supreme Court of Canada? It certainly has effected some elements of Canadian society, some individuals applaud the work of the Court while other feel the Court has overreached it's mandate. Governance of this country is to be taken by the Government, but recent decisions by the Court have dictated some aspects of Canadian society and probably continue to do so with future Constitutional Ligation with the Liberals reinstating the Supreme Court Challenge Program.

[dre]

What do you think about the Supreme Court of Canada? It certainly has effected some elements of Canadian society, some individuals applaud the work of the Court while other feel the Court has overreached it's mandate. Governance of this country is to be taken by the Government, but recent decisions by the Court have dictated some aspects of Canadian society and probably continue to do so with future Constitutional Ligation with the Liberals reinstating the Supreme Court Challenge Program.

I think its the only role in our government that is conducted with any sort of professionalism and competence.

Its no surprise that the court consistently enjoys much higher approval ratings that the rest of the government.

[TimG]

Its no surprise that the court consistently enjoys much higher approval ratings that the rest of the government.

Of course it does. It is like a grandparent who showers the grand kids with gifts on holidays and then disappear while the parents have to live with the consequences.

The court is gradually driving the country into bankruptcy by taking away the elected government's right to set priorities on policies with monetary consequences. Each decision is a drip that seem inconsequential on their own but will eventually cumulatively overwhelm state.

Edited April 4, 2016 by TimG

[Wilber]

I think its the only role in our government that is conducted with any sort of professionalism and competence.

Its no surprise that the court consistently enjoys much higher approval ratings that the rest of the government.

If they had to deal with all the consequences of their decisions, I might agree but they don't have to deal with the financial consequences of any of them.

[dre]

Financing is not the courts role. And most of the decisions striking down government legislation actually save us money. The decision on mandatory minimums will save us money. The decision on prostitution COULD have saved us money and opened up new revenue streams if the legislature didn't screw it up. The ruling on time-served sentencing will save us money. The ruling on assisted suicide could potentially save us money as well.

[Big Guy]

We have a constitution. It describes the conditions under which our society is to be regulated. This constitution was drawn up by an elected assembly and can be changed at any time by a democratically elected assembly.

Our Supreme Court is part of the checks and balance of our constitution. Its role is to interpret the application of the conditions under which our society is regulated (our laws) and by the ruling on examples and assisting law enforcement in the application of our laws. Our SC is not elected but appointed and is not holding to any particular political party or organization.

It serves to keep any elected government from misinterpreting any legislation based on the ideology of that temporarily elected government. When the elected government tries to initiate any laws which do not conform to the constitution, then the SC has the responsibility to negate it. The current temporary government then has the option of trying to change our constitution or change the legislation that is it attempting to facilitate.

I believe it performs its function well and that is why all democracies have a similar check and balance in their structures.

[TimG]

And most of the decisions striking down government legislation actually save us money.

I don't think you have any data to support that claim. Most rulings on aboriginal issues cost billions in by imposing cumbersome processes and handing out defacto vetos over development projects. A BC student with dyslexia who received support from the school district but the SCC ruled that it was 'not enough' creating an open end obligation on school districts to provide whatever money parents of disabled children decide they want. The ruling on refugees requiring a cumbersome appeal process costs money.

[Argus]

Financing is not the courts role. And most of the decisions striking down government legislation actually save us money. The decision on mandatory minimums will save us money. The decision on prostitution COULD have saved us money and opened up new revenue streams if the legislature didn't screw it up. The ruling on time-served sentencing will save us money. The ruling on assisted suicide could potentially save us money as well.

The Bertha Wilson decision on applying the constitution to refugees and illegal migrants has cost us tens of billions so far. Their various decisions on natives have cost billions more, and that will wind up as tens of billions before they're done. If the Supreme Court agrees to the lower court rulings expanding the term for status indian to include metis and off-reservation natives the costs will explode even higher.

[The_Squid]

... some individuals applaud the work of the Court while other feel the Court has overreached it's mandate.

You'll have to be more specific... which decisions and why do you think so?

[dre]

You'll have to be more specific... which decisions and why do you think so?

Turns out that the decisions people disagree with are always clear-cut cases of judicial activism and overreach Who woulda thunk it!

[The_Squid]

On the issue of cost, that's not up to the SCC. If it takes legislation and action by Parliament, they are the ones who need to prioritize spending and/or raise revenue.

"We, the SCC, would have ruled for X because it was unconstitutional to deny this right, but it will cost taxpayers money, so we ruled Y instead"

Maybe the SCC can estimate the costs of potential legislation and have the power to raise the GST to get the revenue... brilliant, eh?

Edited April 5, 2016 by The_Squid

[Topaz]

I think most Canadians have no problems with the SC, so that leaves only some on here.

[TimG]

"We, the SCC, would have ruled for X because it was unconstitutional to deny this right, but it will cost taxpayers money, so we ruled Y instead"

Most rulings today are not clear questions of rights violations but judgement calls pulled out of hat. Given the arbitrariness of most rulings it makes perfect sense to consider the financial implications of making something a right and it makes sense for the government to start refusing to implement rulings that interfere with its constitutional right to prioritize a limited pool of tax dollars.

I realize the concept tax dollars being a finite supply is a concept that you likely have trouble grasping but it is a real issue and as various constitutionally mandated spending adds up then more important programs will have to cut to pay for the goodies demanded by the SCC.

[eyeball]

Most rulings today are not clear questions of rights violations but judgement calls pulled out of hat.

That's why they're called judges but compared to what politicians have been pulling out of their butts I'll take the hat any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[Wilber]

That's why they're called judges but compared to what politicians have been pulling out of their butts I'll take the hat any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Politicians have to find the money to pay for what they pull out of their butts.

[eyeball]

Politicians should pay for their mistakes? Okay.

[Wilber]

Politicians should pay for their mistakes? Okay.

So they should but not the courts apparently, you get to pay for theirs.

[square]

The SCoC stuck down the MMP for drug offense as cruel and usual punishment.

[Argus]

The SCoC stuck down the MMP for drug offense as cruel and usual punishment.

It's not for politicians elected by the people to decide what is appropriate punishment for repeat drug dealers, you know. In a real democracy such decisions are made by unelected judges selected for their geographical, ideological, and ethnic/gender media approval ratings.

It really is past time to do away with Trudeau's constitution. It's done nothing since it was implemented but help criminals, enrich lawyers, and give arrogant judges a sense of power.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Argus

[Big Guy]

Cross out another change to our constitution as attempted by the far right. Thank God for the check and balance of an impartial Supreme Court. That list of things that Harper did for Canada is getting shorter and shorter.

Canada, what a wonderful place to live!

[andromeda]

the way I understand it is that the SCC (the highest court in the land) was established by the 'supreme court act' and not any constitutional act. meaning.... it's existence (or jurisdiction) is contingent upon any sitting majority government not abolishing it. then we have the infamous notwithstanding clause whereby any legislature can tell the supreme court to go to hell. the whole thing sounds pretty wonky to me.

*** actually it would take the combined action of commons and senate to abolish it.

Edited April 16, 2016 by andromeda

[TimG]

The SCoC stuck down the MMP for drug offense as cruel and usual punishment.

Next up: mandatory minimum of 25 years for murder will be ruled as cruel and unusual punishment. What is the point of having crimes if the courts won't put people in jail for breaking them.

[Argus]

Next up: mandatory minimum of 25 years for murder will be ruled as cruel and unusual punishment. What is the point of having crimes if the courts won't put people in jail for breaking them.

Think about what this court is saying for a moment. It is saying that one year in jail is 'cruel and unusual punishment' for a repeat drug trafficker. This despite their full knowledge none of the writers of the constitution would have agreed, this despite the fact virtually none of the people in Canada would agree, and few of its politicians. They are essentially saying their own judgement on what is a proper punishment has more validity than those who write the laws or the people who elect them. Yet there is nothing in the written constitution to guide such a judgement. Nowhere in the constitution does it state what is or is not cruel or unusual. That is presumably left to judges to determine how much a punishment varies from the norm and the culture and values of Canada. Yet the judges here decided they didn't care what the norm was or what the citizenry or politicians felt would be a just sentence. They felt they had the moral authority to go ahead and reset sentences based on their own personal values. And you are correct. If a one year minimum for repeat drug trafficking is cruel and unusual how can ten or twenty five year minimums for murder stand? This court has proven itself extremely inventive in coming up with hypothetical cases in which a law would be unfair, and then using that to declare it invalid, as they did again here. There's no reason whatsoever they can't do the same for murder.

[The_Squid]

Next up: mandatory minimum of 25 years for murder will be ruled as cruel and unusual punishment. What is the point of having crimes if the courts won't put people in jail for breaking them.

That's like, your opinion man....

The SCC has said minimum sentences are fine... just not the over-reach by the previous Harper Gov't.

Edited April 16, 2016 by The_Squid

[TimG]

The SCC has said minimum sentences are fine... just not the over-reach by the previous Harper Gov't.

IOW, it was an arbitrary line drawn based on the prejudices of the sitting judges. They have no moral basis for it.

The ruling simply demonstrates how absurd our courts have gotten. They no longer care about what is in the constitution they only care about imposing their personal ideology on the country.

Edited April 16, 2016 by TimG