Subtle. Surely someone says so, see?
There’s no election for three years, so it won’t matter.
The Conservatives are conservative, but don’t have the same plan Republicans do; it’s a different party that exists within a different system. One could write a whole book just about the difference in politicization of the Supreme Courts.
Good point, Rick.
One of the great things about our Supreme Court in Canada (SCC) is that politicizing it does no good. Our Supreme Court does address constitutional matters, but it is also a court of general appeal–which means that it addresses civil and private matters too. So, contractual matters, and wills and estates matters, and tort matters, all will be addressed by the SCC. And politics plays no role when the SCC is adjudicating (say) a contract matter between two private parties.
Good, general, jurists are needed to sit on the SCC. Not political hacks. Those won’t do much good when it comes down to a decision on an insurance claim (see e.g. Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co, 2002 SCC 18, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595), or a contested will (see e.g. Tataryn v. Tataryn Estate, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 807). You need real judges with real judicial experience in civil jurisprudence to look after those.
Lawyers might not be surprised by the number of cases which inform Constitutional Law that originally seemed like fairly ordinary cases - but used novel defences, brought up variably tangential issues of high relevance, or involved one or more unusual aspects. But I was surprised by this, after reading a small amount of basic legal theory.
I compare law to medicine, which I understand. I see a hypothetical sick patient. Say his smoking and bad lungs contributed to his recent heart attack and the relevant info suggests he would benefit from recent surgical advances. This simple hypothetical involves medicine, respirology, cardiology, surgery and incorporates prehospital medicine, emergency care, critical care medicine, anaesthesia, cardiac surgery, post surgical care and allied things like education, physiotherapy and other services. These are studied individually, but any case of any complexity involves many domains.
Law has different domains with different histories, precedents and rules. The same case might be viewed as a tort or a negligence or a contract violation or a crime or administrative or something else depending on the details. The overlap seems clunky. But the learned judge has to understand almost all of it. Is this a fair analogy, or not so accurate?
Though admirable in many respects, I wonder if it is even possible to remove all traces of politics from the judiciary. I presume Canada does it as well as anyone, notwithstanding the role of politicians in creating law. I could not even begin to say how common it is to chastise a judge for wearing a MAGA hat, how reasonable this is, or how strictly good principles of corporate governance are applied when retired judges lead government commissions.
(I understand each path has advantages, disadvantages, requirements and differences. More getting at the knowledge of the judge n many domains.
I understand less the American Supremes. Are you implying that they never (or rarely) get involved in civil disputes, or other categories of law? Or is this just since State Supreme Courts are different from national jurisdiction?)
A few questions about the recent concern about RCMP Chief Lucki asking the Nova Scotia leadership for guns used in a terrible crime for the political purpose (possible, probable, purported, presumed) of naming these guns in an upcoming announcement about gun restrictions.
-
This has been front page news for a few days. Is this really high level interference? Not including language or style and based only on the desire for this information, is this really so bad? There does seem to have been an attempt to hide this disclosure, but is it all that surprising, unprecedented or scandalous?
-
What was the hurry, if this information would certainly have come out anyway? The lack of transparency?
-
Is the concern largely about being seen to take an action rather than meaningful action?
-
I have a lot of sympathy for the police involved in this situation dealing with a bizarre event, doing their best, facing a lot of scrutiny. I have less sympathy for the attempts to avoid any investigation, and much sympathy for the people involved and affected. Rather than zeal, I would prefer to see measures put in place to improve reactions, confidence and communities. So what would be the best outcomes and decisions?
Some municipalities have been asked to reduce the size of their Canada Day celebrations, either directly or by reduced funding. I have to say that after Covid I think a display of measured patriotism is in order.
Our country is far from perfect and always will be. But there is nothing wrong with recognizing the good things about our nation, of which there are many, displaying flags at full mast and celebrating the distance we have travelled.
The Supreme Court of Canada is a court of general appeal. They have jurisdiction to hear and decide any legal question, even one of purely provincial or private law, no public law involved. Wills and estates, contracts, principles of property distribution on marital breakup; all can be heard in the SCC.
The US court is different. It’s a court of limited appellate jurisdiction, limited to matters of federal statute law, international treaties, and the US Constitution. If a matter comes to it on appeal from a state court, it has to accept the state court’s interpretation of state law and the state constitution. It can only deal with the federal or US constitutional issue. That can include a constitutional challenge to the state law or state constitution, but the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to alter the interpretation of the state law or state constitution.
If there is no issue of federal law or federal Constitution in a decision of a state court, the Supreme Court has no power to hear the appeal.
So state Supreme Courts are, and provincial Supremes aren’t, as a consequence of how the different countries decide how matters are divided. (I realize this is not exactly true as higher courts may see no relevant outstanding issues, probably most of the time.)
I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of common sense shown in most Canadian legal matters, at least those discussed at a basic level (and not including system issues). One does not always get that sense from reading opinions and newspapers, perhaps since they tend to report incompletely and on less ordinary things.
In fact, we don’t usually use the term « Supreme Court » to mean the highest provincial court. « Court of Appeal » is the most common term.
The provincial Courts of Appeal are in practice the final court for most cases, since the SCC normally only hears about 60 cases a year. However, that’s finality based on system constraints (the SCC can’t hear a lot of appeals). It’s not finality in terms of subject matter.
Some hoohah about Patrick Brown being removed from the Conservative race because of vague allegations a staffer accepted something from a numbered company. Brown claims this is not so and he was not given real detail. No doubt additional facts will come to light.
I have long considered myself an economic conservative and socially liberal. Like many Canadians I lean towards compromise and common sense and much prefer this to mismanagement, mischief and melodrama.
Trudeau has made a number of questionable decisions and the natural order of things is Canadians eventually get tired of presumptive attitudes, misplaced priorities and scandal - and seek a change.
This time around, it seems clear that Poilievre is the most popular candidate and most likely to win. This was going to happen anyway. I would prefer this happen without dirty tricks and am unsure how the venom and vituperation is going to persuade people they can govern better. Isn’t it traditional to have high ranking party members serve as Ministers? The Conservatives have done well in raising funds. I am sure many businesses would prefer the current government to be dealing with economic issues much more effectively. At this point, I am unsure any party has shown real signs of taking the economy very seriously.
I wonder if there is real substance to the allegations. If not, the party has bigger problems than I thought.
-
Poilievre is going to win with Harper’s endorsement.
-
Enjoyed this Coyne column. He is getting better, unlike Rex Murphy (who I used to like, but has become a little unhinged).
A LITTLE unhinged? Rex snapped the hinges off a decade ago. Lately he’s been verging into complete underpants on the head conspiracy land.
Haven’t read Rex in years.
He is a skilled writer and Newfoundlanders can be eloquent. I enjoyed a few of his ancient books. However, he signed on to a lot of the nonsense which has preoccupied our Southern neighbours. His columns are no longer very entertaining, and have not been for some time.
I also used to like Rex Murphy, but yeah, he’s way off the rails for quite some time. He reminds me of Scott Adams, except better at expressing himself.
I noticed that Trudeau disapproval numbers are climbing. CPC numbers are rising. I am deeply concerned this means a PP PM. Ugh. I want to be wrong so badly. Please Canada, don’t put the populist troll clown in charge of the country.
Any chance Trudeau steps down?
Don’t panic yet. Trudeau and the Liberals numbers are dropping right now because of inflation and what not. But we’ve got more than three years before the next election, and so anything is possible. If the economy recovers, and Trudeau actually does something about the housing crisis, their numbers should recover as well.
Unless Trudeau builds 400,000 homes with his own hands, or forbids corporations from speculating in the secondary housing market, the housing problem will remain.
There is no magic wand the government can wave to solve this.
Well, no, but the bolded bit is something that the government could actually do, if they had the will.
There’s other things they could try as well, such as adjustments to zoning laws, and tax incentives to build new housing. One of the big problems is that it’s really difficult to get approvals to build the sort of housing we need to really improve things. Sure, it will take a long time to actually make a dent in the problem, but someone has to take the first steps, and if Trudeau shows he understands that, it probably wouldn’t hurt. Housing issues is the one thing PP talks about that makes any sense, so taking on this issue seems like a no-brainer to me.