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.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/09/12/10853101-sun.html

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.

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.