tinkering with the Supreme Court
--------------------
The Conservative government has announced that the next judge appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada will be questioned by a public Parliamentary hearing. Although Conservatives promised a free vote in the House of Commons on the appointment of new Supreme Court justices during the election campaign, they will now appoint an ad hoc parliamentary committee to question the new appointee. Many legal scholars and jurists – including former Chief Justices Bora Laskin and Antonio Lamer and current Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin – have long maintained that publicly cross-examining judicial nominees could lead to a U.S.-style appointments process which will politicize the bench. Although the next nominee will come from the shortlist of independent candidates put forth by legal experts, Justice Minister Vic Toews and Prime Minister Stephen Harper have made it no secret that they wish to appoint judges who are more favourable to the social conservative viewpoint in the future.
In a speech entitled "Abuse of the Charter by the Supreme Court”, Mr. Toews, who has repeatedly shown a lack of respect for Canada’s highest judicial body when the court’s decisions do not coincide with his own views, said: "The lessons that should not be lost on those who want to see specific policies implemented in the country is that it is not enough to gain a majority of the votes in Parliament, social policy in this country requires the approval of the judiciary it is for that reason that my party has been so adamant that the process for appointing judges needs to be opened up."
Similarly, during the election campaign Prime Minister Harper told reporters: "The reality is that we will have for some time to come a Liberal senate, a Liberal civil service, at least senior levels have been appointed by the Liberals, and courts that have been appointed by the Liberals. So these are obviously checks on the power of a Conservative government."
The Supreme Court is an independent judicial body and judges should be selected based on the over-riding principle of merit and not on the political leanings of the government of the day. Liberals (myself included) are highly skeptical of a hearing process that could become politicized and impinge on the dignity of the Supreme Court. This ad hoc hearing is and will be nothing but a political sideshow – if the goal is truly to make the judicial appointment process more transparent, then Parliament should examine the various options and develop a thoughtful and measured approach that achieves this goal while ensuring "supreme confidence" in the independence and dignity of the judiciary.
--------------------
In a speech entitled "Abuse of the Charter by the Supreme Court”, Mr. Toews, who has repeatedly shown a lack of respect for Canada’s highest judicial body when the court’s decisions do not coincide with his own views, said: "The lessons that should not be lost on those who want to see specific policies implemented in the country is that it is not enough to gain a majority of the votes in Parliament, social policy in this country requires the approval of the judiciary it is for that reason that my party has been so adamant that the process for appointing judges needs to be opened up."
Similarly, during the election campaign Prime Minister Harper told reporters: "The reality is that we will have for some time to come a Liberal senate, a Liberal civil service, at least senior levels have been appointed by the Liberals, and courts that have been appointed by the Liberals. So these are obviously checks on the power of a Conservative government."
The Supreme Court is an independent judicial body and judges should be selected based on the over-riding principle of merit and not on the political leanings of the government of the day. Liberals (myself included) are highly skeptical of a hearing process that could become politicized and impinge on the dignity of the Supreme Court. This ad hoc hearing is and will be nothing but a political sideshow – if the goal is truly to make the judicial appointment process more transparent, then Parliament should examine the various options and develop a thoughtful and measured approach that achieves this goal while ensuring "supreme confidence" in the independence and dignity of the judiciary.
posted by þΛųL jØŋαŦhΛŋ @ 23:30
1 Comments:
At 3:07 p.m.,
Anonymous said…
Naturally, the Prime Minister, who has the sole power to appoint members of the judiciary, would never consider the political optics or implications of these appointments. Nor does it matter that ALL of the present Supreme Court judges were appointed by either Chretien or Martin (with the exception of CJC McLachlin, appointed by Mulroney and raised to Chief Justice by Chretien). Those most opposed to transparency are generally those who have the most to gain by its absence.
Post a Comment
<< Home