[ql06] PUBLIC: Judges and MPs
- From: "Ken Campbell" <2kc16@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <ql06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:21:40 -0500
Stan Corbett has several times gotten rather passionate (he clearly has
some pet issues) when talking about the politician's myth of judges
taking over Canadian laws -- including, the class before the exam,
raising it again to point out the high courts have had the ability to
strike down legislation as unconstitutional long before the Charter
entered the scene.
He usually refers to the group making the claims of courts running the
country as "certain people."
Well, here in today's news, is a specific "certain person." From the
article below:
Alliance MP Vic Toews says it is important to understand
who exactly are the individuals named to the bench
because "the courts are increasingly taking over a
political or social policy role."
Usually, the complaints have come from the cranky right wing -- like
Real Couette from Quebec (old style reactionary French Canadian) and a
variety of messiahs from Methodist Alberta.
Today, it's usually from the Reform Party types inside the Canadian
Alliance Party.
I don't mean to sound too dismissive, as judicial activism can get
carried away. But that's not directly the point. The point is judges
have always had that power.
Ken.
--
You never know if you've got a happy ending [to your life]
until you finally die. I guess _nobody's_ life has a happy
ending if you look at it that way.
-- Patty Hearst, 1982
--- cut here ---
Understand judiciary better, expert tells MPs
Urges them not to use courts as `whipping boy';
Warns against U.S. style confirmation hearing for judges
TONDA MACCHARLES
OTTAWA BUREAU
TORONTO STAR
Nov. 7, 2003
OTTAWA -— A top legal expert scolded MPs against using the courts as "a
whipping boy" on tough issues like same-sex marriage and warned a
Commons justice committee against American-style public confirmation
hearings for top appeal judges.
University of Ottawa professor Ed Ratushny, an internationally respected
expert on judicial conduct and independence, testified yesterday that
elected officials should better understand the judicial role and resist
calls for hearings that would simply politicize the judiciary.
"Same-sex marriage, I know, is a problem for elected representatives.
And it's natural to use the courts as the whipping boy rather than
explaining the role of the judiciary, which is often difficult to do in
your circumstances. It's, I guess, easier to say the judiciary is
terrible."
But Ratushny pointed out the role of the courts is not to ensure the
will of the majority always prevails, but to ensure minority rights
under the constitution are respected, even when the majority disagrees.
He urged MPs to look to the United States where research shows 40 per
cent of nomination contests become pitched, bitter battles with the
race, religion and political beliefs of a nominee on trial.
On the heels of a scorching cross-country debate over same-sex marriage,
the Commons recently agreed with a Bloc Québécois motion calling for a
review of how Canada appoints judges to its senior appeal courts and the
Supreme Court of Canada.
It could recommend changes to the way judges have been named to the top
court for its entire 128-year history.
More transparency is also a fundamental plank in the pledge by incoming
prime minister Paul Martin to reduce what he calls a "democratic
deficit" in Canada.
"The appointment of Supreme Court justices should not go ahead until
Parliament has had the chance to review the appointments," Martin said
in May. Martin has never specified just how such a review would work.
The justice department, with an eye on Martin's arrival in the prime
minister's office, is already looking at ways to open up the process.
But Ratushny, Canadian head of the International Commission of Jurists
and the first outside witness to appear, said the system as it now works
needs only minor tweaking to provide a measure of transparency,
suggesting a protocol setting deadlines for appointments, and outlining
a precise consultation process.
Ratushny acknowledged the appointments made behind closed doors by the
prime minister, but only after broad consultation with the legal
community.
Nearly all senior appointments are elevations of judges already sitting
on trial court benches, who have a track record of hard work and
thoughtful judgments.
And all appointments to lower courts are already screened beforehand by
provincial selection committee and shortlists submitted to the justice
minister.
It's a system he said that has resulted in "outstanding" judicial
candidates in the past 25 years, and is respected as a standard for
countries all over the world.
The prime minister is politically accountable for his choices, said
Ratushny. He added the government, and not a selection committee, is
best placed to ensure a court's bench reflects gender, racial and
regional diversity.
Bloc Québécois MP Richard Marceau, whose motion forced the committee to
look at judicial appointments, argued the process should be more
transparent, not to introduce more politics, but to bolster the
credibility of the bench and kill suggestions that people are named for
their political connections.
Marceau cited the cases of Judge Michel Robert, a former head of the
Liberal Party of Canada, recently named chief justice of Quebec, and
Marie Deschamps, recently named to the Supreme Court of Canada, who is
married to former Quebec Liberal cabinet minister Paul Gobeil.
But Ratushny yesterday flatly dismissed those concerns, and said
political involvement should not disqualify anyone from judicial
service.
Some Liberals on the committee are eager for reform.
"I certainly agree there's too much power in one office," said MP Pat
O'Brien, a vocal critic of the Ontario Court of Appeal for legalizing
same-sex marriage.
Alliance MP Vic Toews says it is important to understand who exactly are
the individuals named to the bench because "the courts are increasingly
taking over a political or social policy role."
Other related posts:
