Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
He can't. QB and Court of Appeal judges are appointed by the federal government from recommendations by a committee made up of a group of people, some of whom are CBA and bar association representatives.
He could I guess appoint people to the PC but no one would care, because... well, the PC doesn't particularly matter. I mean it's important for the functioning of the judicial system obviously, but it doesn't make significant decisions.
Your overall point is taken though. I just think we're in better shape because of how the judiciary operates up here.
|
Sorry, at risk of a bit of a derail, I have to disagree here.
First, it is superficial to say there is a committee and its got independent people on it so we are in great shape. At the end of the day the appointments are made by cabinet.
The politicization of judicial appointments is a live controversy in Canada:
Liberals under fire for partisan involvement in judicial appointments
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...l-appointment/
Quote:
|
The involvement of a partisan Liberal network in judicial appointments makes it impossible for Canadians to know whether judges are being chosen on merit, legal observers say.
|
I mean a sitting judge just got rebuked for inappropriate involvement in influencing new appointments together with her MP husband:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/cana...t-on-judicial/
Second, your statement that the Provincial Court doesn't make significant decisions is wrong in my view.
The vast majority of criminal prosecutions are run in the Provincial Court. As such, massive amounts of Charter litigation occurs there. In fact, people are often amazed to learn how many of their rights are argued by underfunded lawyers being paid by legal aid making arguments on behalf of alleged and actual criminals.
Of course the trial court is subject to federally appointed appeal courts, yes, but the standard of review is such that if you can win factual arguments in support of your legal argument, the appeal courts may have no choice but to affirm the discretionary decisions of the trial judge.
There is also huge discretion in criminal sentencing which I assure you the public cares about.
As to whether there would be an electoral response to a major slate of apparently partisan UCP judicial appointees? Can we be sure it wouldn't be a majority positive response? Is it inconceivable we may get a chance to see?
Alberta purges judicial vetting committee for former Tory cabinet ministers, political supporters
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...ourt-1.5605547
Quote:
|
Several new appointees told CBC News they never applied for a seat on the committee and instead had been recruited.
|
Back to my first point. Don't like the make-up of the committee that vets nominations? Delete them all and then go recruit people who didn't apply but who you want to be on the committee for some specific reason...
I am not impugning anyone currently on the committee, but rather, pointing out that our system is arguably just as vulnerable if someone wanting to take a Trump-like approach comes along.
Anyway, to tie this back to the topic, elections have consequences and we should not miss out on the lessons that are being learned in the US right now. Democratic institutions can be dismantled very quickly by someone who just decides not to follow established norms and protocols.