Let me just turn the statement around that Stephen Harper made about all those left-wing ideologue judges we apparently have in Canada today, and how the Liberals would put more “left-wing ideologues” in place if they were in government.
Imagine how many right-wing ideologues Stephen Harper would be putting in the courts, federal institutions, agencies, the Senate, if he were to get that majority government he was literally begging his party supporters in Sault Ste. Marie last week to help him achieve. I should say, how many more would he be putting in? The new appointment to the Federal Court of Appeal of former Mulroney Cabinet Minister Pierre Blais is a prime example of that. When Harper accused judges of being “left-wing ideologues” and the Liberals of appointing more “left-wing ideological judges” if they were elected, you’d think his implication would be he only appoints “moderate” judges to the bench. Not so; his reaction is to appoint right-wing ideologues to the bench.
As an aside, I’m not surprised that Harper would put someone on the bench who he hopes will be an ideological ally of his on the Federal Court of Appeal. The Federal Court of Canada and its Appeal branch has been a thorn in Harper’s side of late – striking down his and the Conservative government’s attempts to arbitrarily deny help to those Canadians they’d rather not help. So, it’s not surprising he’d try to tip the Federal Court back towards his ideological point of view on issues like that, with a Conservative appointee.
UPDATE: With this appointment, it may also be that perhaps Harper is trying to get environmental decisions that the Federal Court has ruled against his government reversed on appeal.
Suppose you’re right and Harper would appoint right-wing ideologues. Wouldn’t that be consistent with his view that it would be “balancing” out the existing left-wing ideologues? Is it unfair to suggest there be balance?
Of course, who is right-wing or left-wing or “moderate” depends on where your own orientation is. To a Dipper, existing appointees might seem right-wing already. To Liberals they might seem fair and moderate. To Tories they might seem left-wing. So why is any of this even worth talking about? Whatever their own views, people tend to assert that those who share their views are moderate and reasonable people. Not surprising in the least.
It is wrong to consider any of the appointments on the basis of who appointed them. Judges were once lawyers. Lawyers are supposed to know the law. The law is not based on your personal opinion. Appointments are made by politicians, but, at least until Harper came along, they were vetted by a non-partisan committee, including other judges. Harper changed that to take judges out of the mix and put his own people in instead. That said, the law is the law and it should not matter who is appointed,so long as that person has demonstrated they have the ability to perform the function appropriately.
Gayle, you are so right. I have always considered judges to be fair-minded, non-partisan lawyers who have demonstrated intelligence,integrity and impartiality in their professional behavior. Ideology is for (some) polititians and should not be part of the judiciary. Harper is trying to change that and we will all be worse off if he succeeds.
Gayle, Joan, with the greatest respect, you’re both kidding yourselves. Different judges have different views on different issues, just like the general population. If there were only one “correct” way to interpret laws, we wouldn’t even need judges because the answers would be self-evident. Legal judgments are appealed and overturned every day by judges who disagree with other judges. So it is on the Supreme Court as well, where a great many landmark decisions have 5-4 or 6-3 decisions.
My point was that it’s hardly surprising for a Conservative to believe that a supposedly non-partisan judiciary or bureaucracy appointed almost entirely by Liberal governments would be Liberal-oriented. If the parties were in each other’s shoes I’d certainly expect Liberals to make the same sorts of allegations.
@Optimus P, The problem is with your assumption that legal opinion depend on political affiliation.
It is never a matter of “views”, but rather one of interpretation. Judges have to assess the facts and come to a legal conclusion, but that conclusion is not in a void. It is based upon legal precedent. The fact that other judges do not agree with the interpretation is obvious, however so long as that interpretation is based on legal precedent rather than political affiliation it is a legitimate decision (even if ultimately overturned).
By way of example, I have heard many CPC supporters opine that SSM would not be legalized but for all those liberal judges. I disagree. SSM was legalized because the Charter and precedent. I do not believe it would have mattered who appointed the judges. Contrast this with the US, where some judges are elected and risk losing their position on the bench if they render an unpopular decision. Legal decisions should not be based on what is popular but rather what is right.
From what I have seen, judicial decisions in this country have never been a function of the political views of the judge. I would hate to see that change.
Gayle, I couldn’t have said it better. Of course, judges have differing views based on experience and a lot of other variables, but it is their mandate and responsibility to interpret the laws according to precedent, legislation, the Charter and thoughtful deliberation. It is not their choice to interject their own personal ideologies into that process. Fortunately, judges of all stripes, in Canada, have put aside personal views to come to the right judgements.
@Joan Richard, You only have to review the career and decision of our Chief Justice to see that.
this is disgusting
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/09/12/10853101-sun.html
@kwittet, yes it is very disgusting the bias that the Sun used to “report’ the story. Truly sensationalistic and just to sell some more papers. Truly digusting.
@Jon Pertwee, and this blog here NEVER gets sensationalistic? I call this the national enquirer of all blogs.(sorry scott..i know we are cousins but it is just my opinion) but you defend it? case in point..the secret taping of harper..god forbid him that he should want a majority and yet this blog slams him for being so arrogant to want that????????
and you just soak it up..thats not sad..it hilarious!!
@kwittet, you haven’t read too many blogs then if you’re calling mine the National Enquirer.
As Jeff said and explained over at his site, it’s not the fact he said he wants a majority, but it’s the message Harper portrayed about what he’d do with it if he got it.