"It goes without saying that judges must be neutral arbitrators in disputes that come before them... They can have no personal agenda, and they must be independent."
That's the biggest fallacy ever. Everyone has an agenda. There is no such thing as a "neutral abritrator." There are only agendas.
Oh, by all means people call themselves "neutral." Like journalists, or reporters call themselves "neutral." Then they try to sell newspapers by jazzing up stories. Wanting to sell newspapers may just be an "agenda" wouldn't ya know? Neutrality, or at least the concept they are describing, doesn't exist either. A judge has opinions just like anyone else. It's just that people fool themselves into believing that their "opinions" don't have an affect on how they do their job.
"Critics of the new process have warned that it runs the risk of politicizing the country's highest court."
Would appointing these characters as a judge be considered "politicizing?":
....Cotler's executive assistant and policy adviser, Cotler's former chief of staff, the former legal counsel to the Ontario Liberal Party, the wife of a close Cotler friend, a senior Alberta Liberal fund-raiser and close friend of Alberta Liberal cabinet minister Anne McLellan, the former co-chair of the 2004 Alberta federal Liberal campaign, an unsuccessful Liberal candidate in the 1997 and 2000 Alberta elections, a twice-defeated federal Liberal candidate in Alberta, and a former Liberal minister of finance in New Brunswick.(link)
Because all were Supreme Court Nominees.
No, it couldn't be. Liberal appointments to the Supreme Court? Believe it. These are the "neutral arbritators" they talk about that don't have an "agenda."
"He cannot tell you how he would decide a hypothetical case," he said. "He might eventually be faced with that case.
"For the same reason, he cannot tell what you his views are on controversial issues, such as abortion, same-sex marriage or secession."
I expect that rule to change, and soon. Oh, it won't be done officially. But as these hearings become tradition in the Dominion, I bet some politicians will decide to dance on the lines and not-quite-so-ask-but-quasy-ask those questions.
As an alternative, the Canadian Bar Association has recommended that new Supreme Court judges be questioned by a leading journalist in a televised interview conducted under the CBA's supervision.
"There is no need to create an appearance that judges are beholden to those members of the very government they will undoubtedly be required to judge," CBA president Brian Tabor said.
"There is a better, safer approach to introduce a Supreme Court nominee to Canadians without creating doubt as to the independence and impartiality of our judges."(link)
I think a touch of doubt just might already exist... But far from me to disagree with the big Lawyer dude, with the suing and the "hey defamation lawsuit" thing...
What a flap-crappy way of selecting a judge - but at least it's an improvement to what we're used to in the True North Strong and Free.
"FYI The list of people you included weren't Supreme Court nominees. They were judidical appointments."
ReplyDeleteOuch touche. I made a booboo I guess :-P
It still doesn't change the point - Liberal governments make Liberal appointments.
"I think it's important to realize that Mr. Cotler has made approximately 100 appointments over the past two years.
...it isn't difficult to find that 9% of the list is somehow affiliated with the Liberal party. Given the higher percentage of individuals associated with the law that are in parliament, I'm surprised the number isn't higher."
I'm not. It's called a "secret." Just like Republicans in the US would rather appoint a "conservative" judge that has no direct ties to the GOP, in Canada we're no different.
BTW from that same web site listed: "The Hon. Madam Justice Constance Glube appeared as a witness on November 15, 2005 before the House of Commons Justice Committee which was reviewing the judicial appointments system, she acknowledged in her testimony that the judicial appointment system must be changed because the appointments were based not on merit, but rather on political considerations."
That's one of kings calling the royalty broken... I would take that as a good sign that the process is politicized wouldn't you?
"To a lesser extent I'm concerned that the source of the list is from a partisan organization, and a lot of the points we really do have to 'take their word on'. For instance, I don't know how I could research to find whether 'Rosalie Abella' really is Cotler's wife's friend."
That's the same with any news source. Unless you are there for yourself you never know. You never will know unless you do indepth research yourself... That's what a reporter is supposed to do.
That's the problem I tried to convay to you in an earlier comment/post: people stretch the truth. Even scientists. Because everyone has an AGENDA. Even I have. I'm open about it. I'm pro-life, conservative, pro-space, anti-NASA and whatever the heck else you can discern from this blog. You can choose to disagree with me if you like - but I don't want to fool myself or others by saying I'm "neutral." Because I'm not.
"Finally, I think the Canadian Bar Association has a point. To some extent a judicial review opens up the process to the threat of populism. And populists ruin everything. IMHO. :)"
We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I think the "uncivilized barbarians" should have a voice too! :-P