The news in the past two days from south of the border is definitely interesting, and highlights that Canada and US are constitutional mirror images:
US: Guns are good! and let’s do everything we can to ban abortions!
Canada: Abortion laws are a “profound interference with a woman’s body”. And nation-wide restrictions on firearm ownership, including registering long-guns as well as handguns, are clearly constitutional.
I expect to see a bearded Mr Spock walking down the street anytime now.
Be careful that Mr Spock isn’t wearing a cork hat.
https://images.app.goo.gl/NH3Y3VB4p7Pu3Lod7
Australia: constitution mentions neither matter.
But a woman’s personal health is matter between her and her physician and if there was any mass shooting incident blotting our copybook since Port Arthur in 1996 and we’ll vote in a landslide for national gun control legislation that a police state would applaud with no diminution of our fundamental freedoms.
I think it’s pretty clear that America is evil Canada, we’re the ones with the goatee.
Maybe he’s scouting us out for ideas. 
I think the political system in the US is severely broken. Presidents can get elected that don’t win the majority of votes and a handful of unelected political appointees can interpret a 233-year-old document and arbitrarily make decisions that impact the lives of hundreds of millions of people without consequences short of impeachment. There have been 27 amendments to the US Constitution so far, and you can read anything into it you want.
A better explanation is simply that the Canadian Bill of Rights is newer and no one believes “originalism” (the purported intent of the founders) outweighs modern sensibilities, examining sociocultural and legal arguments made in other countries, the will of its citizenry or common sense.
Canada is not immune to bearded Spocks. Notwithstanding the above, we are not immune to populism. We seem to have a need to punch above our weight on the international stage. It is proper that Constitutional law is “a living tree”. It is naive to believe one can’t hurt it by using too much fertilizer.
Heck, two of the drafters of the Charter disagreed with each other on same-sex marriage. Prime Minister Chrétien, who had been AG of Canada in 1982, has stated that he was caught by surprise by the courts’ decision that same-sex marriage was constitutionally required. The primary decision that implemented same-sex marriage was written by Chief Justice McMurtry of Ontario, who had been the AG of Ontario in 1982. The two of them were leads in getting the final draft of the Charter approved.
When the original drafters did not agree on what the Charter requires, how can originalism have any force?
Obviously in some places it does, regardless of my opinion about it. Drafters may be notable for their intelligence and pragmatism. Demanding complete clairvoyance seems a big ask.
Aristotle and other Greek scientists and philosophers were also brilliant men - but no good reason to hold up scientific progress for centuries just because realistic conditions differ from what they believed, or worse, what someone believes they believed.
True that. But let’s remember that the only thing SCOTUS was license legislators in Texas, Oklahoma and elsewhere to take away those rights. So it is in collaboration with those misogynist bastards in the state legislatures.
There was also an article by two retired Canadian Supreme Court justices saying this will reduce the influence of US decisions in Canada. My weak understanding was American law was gaining in influence in Canada since they simply had so many more cases in relevant areas like business practice, technology and almost any other area of law to consider. I still think this to be the case despite these recent events and the long history of considering British and Commonwealth opinion.