The word ‘secretary’ and its variants in many European languages for a scribe etc. long predated the development of the secrétaire, as in a piece of furniture.
Canada?
I hate that our new platform doesn’t tell where people are located, assuming they wish to give it out.
Speaking of SCOTUS law clerks, does anyone happen to know of a legal thriller centered on their milieu, published probably around 1990? I used to own it, and it was good enough that I read it more than once. I’d like to find it again, but I don’t remember the title or author. IIRC the author wasn’t anyone that I knew in the genre, so it definitely wasn’t by Scott Turow or any of those really famous authors who specialize in this type of fiction.
Murder in the Supreme Court - Truman? It’s part of the Capitol Crimes series.
Ohio, USA.
Ah.
I was forgetting that we have 51 jurisditions in this country
As far as I know, “law clerk” is used in all the English-speaking provinces, and in English in the Supreme Court and Federal Court. Can’t remember what the French term is.
As far as I know, that isn’t how either the judges or the clerks operate in Canada.
Some years ago, when one of the SCC judges retired, he was asked about politics on the Court in an exit interview he gave to a journalist.
His response was that he didn’t know how his colleagues voted in elections. It was never discussed, and not apparent from their decisions.
The clerks are similarly not partisan, by what I’ve heard.
We do things a bit differently down here, alas:
Politics are very different in Canada. The vast majority of the population has no “party affiliation” and many more ridings outside of rural areas can swing in a different direction each election; vote per party can swing much more wildly as can some party policies. Most people are not heavily invested in one party or another. Plus an unpopular leader is more vulnerable to being replaced by the party (much like what happened to Margaret Thatcher in Britain).
IIRC, most Candian judge appointments are recommended to the government of the day by the Law Society of the country or province (I’m sure Piper can tell us the exact process) so politics has a lot less to do with it - while down south by contrast, there is a group (Federalist Society?) who seems to be vetting US judges for one party based on their apparent political bias. Plus IIRC Canadian judges are appointed by the government (for life, like USA) rather than being grilled and approved by the entire legislative body.
Should also mention that most Canadian laws, if judged “unconstitutional” can be overridden by parliament, using the “notwithstanding” clause. However, this (IIRC) needs to renewed every 5 years, so politicians who revoke consitutional rights will eventually answer to the electorate.
And as happened here with Jean Chrétien (Paul Martin gradually gained control of the party apparatus and forced him out; a very quiet, polite Canadian coup 
) and Premier Redford in Alberta.
Not quite. General idea is correct.
Lawyers have to apply for an appointment. Any lawyer in good standing can apply.
For federal appointments, the federal government sets up a committee in each province, chaired by a federally appointed judge named to the committee by the Chief Justice of the province. The Committee is made up of nominees from the Law Society (regulatory body) and the Canadian Bar Association (lawyer professional body), and members representing other community groups.
The committee vets the applications and gives a recommendation to the federal Minister of Justice: recommended or not recommended.
It’s then up to the Minister of Justice to make the recommendation to Cabinet for the appointment.
There is still politics in the appointment process, since any decision by the federal Cabinet is a political one. How political, depends on the particular government and Minister of Justice.
Once appointed, a judge is required to cut all ties with partisan activities. Can’t attend party events, can’t make donations, can’t make any political statements (a judge in Ontario got disciplined for wearing a MAGA hat).
Federally appointed judges, including judges of the SCC, are required to retire at age 75.
No review by the Parliament, to keep politicking to a minimum.
« Notwithstanding » only applies to certain parts of the Charter. Doesn’t apply to the division of powers between Parliament and the provinces. If the courts rule that a statute is outside federal jurisdiction, there’s nothing the parliament can do; same if a provincial law is struck down on division of powers grounds.
Basic democratic rights, language rights, and minority rights under the Charter can’t be overridden, nor the remedy provisions.
For example, we have a guarantee of the right to vote under the charter. The SCC held that can’t be taken away from a citizen for criminal misconduct, so prisoners never lose the right to vote. That SCC decision isn’t subject to the « notwithstanding » clause.
Thank you.
This may also be of interest: https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/29/politics/sotomayor-supreme-court-frustration/index.html