Is The Supreme Court Heading For A Conservative Revolution?

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Is The Supreme Court Heading For A Conservative Revolution?

Scary!

Is The Supreme Court Heading For A Conservative Revolution?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-the-supreme-court-heading-for-a-conservative-revolution/

NorthReport

.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I guess maybe the Not Withstanding Clause makes a little more sense when you look to the south to see what un-elected "Supremes" can say about what is and what isn't a law.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I do criticize the Liberal party a lot, but they have done an excellent job of appointing liberal Supreme Court judges. I don’t complain there.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Misfit wrote:

I do criticize the Liberal party a lot, but they have done an excellent job of appointing liberal Supreme Court judges. I don’t complain there.

So far our Canadian system appoints people who are jurists first and political hacks second. I think the fact that many judges in the US are elected, something that has seriously perverted their justice system, means that party politics is at the core of judicial appointments to higher levels of court.

JKR

US Supreme Court Justices are so obviously partisan that they could, or maybe should, have a “D” or an “R” placed next to their names. 

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I guess maybe the Not Withstanding Clause makes a little more sense when you look to the south to see what un-elected "Supremes" can say about what is and what isn't a law.

Indeed. The notwithstanding clause has some political accountability whereas unelected judges distorting law to a political drumbeat has no accountability at all.

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Misfit wrote:

I do criticize the Liberal party a lot, but they have done an excellent job of appointing liberal Supreme Court judges. I don’t complain there.

So far our Canadian system appoints people who are jurists first and political hacks second. I think the fact that many judges in the US are elected, something that has seriously perverted their justice system, means that party politics is at the core of judicial appointments to higher levels of court.

Absolutely true. The ones that are not elected in the US are appointed based on political interest. If you think the US political system is a shambles, their so called justice system is even worse (if that is possible).

Misfit Misfit's picture

BTW, I never mentioned partisan politics nor elections nor the US judicial system. I simply made the observation that the Liberal party has made some very impressive appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I mean specificslly, Bertha Wilson, Rosalie Abella, and Louise Arbour.

voice of the damned

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I guess maybe the Not Withstanding Clause makes a little more sense when you look to the south to see what un-elected "Supremes" can say about what is and what isn't a law.

Except that if Notwithstanding existed in the US, it would be used mostly by regressive legislatures to overrule liberal court decisions such as Miranda, Roe Vs. Wade, and the more recent rulings abolishing sodomy laws and mandating same-sex marriage. Without going back to the New Deal era, about the only issue I can think where US courts have advanced "rights" that progressives would want squashed by the courts is the right to bear arms. 

And come to think of it, is Canada all that much different, in terms of courts vs. legislatures? Usually, when I hear people demanding that politicians invoke Notwithstanding, it's conservatives who think that the courts are going too far in protecting the rights of generally marginalized groups, and want to let majoritarian impulses romp free. See Ralph Klein's invocation against gay rights, and Legault's his barely-disguised anti-Muslim "laicite" laws, wrapped up in Notwithstanding.