Friday, May 13, 2011

Two New Supreme Court Judges

Ironically the day after a large "March for Life" rally in Ottawa, two Supreme Court judges are announcing their retirement. The Soloman Show was rife today with speculation as to what kind of judges will be selected to replace the outgoing justices. Today's poll question, should the Prime Minister appoint socially conservative judges to the Supreme Court? Also today the Supreme Court ruled that the public does not have the right to access all documents from the Prime Minister's Office or the offices of cabinet ministers. I'm sure Kady O'Malley will be pissed off.

I'm assuming that nobody knew during the campaign that these judges were likely going to retire, otherwise the Liberals would have gone bananas over the alleged evil right wingers the PM would inevitably select. The first judge stepping down is Louise Charron (the last Paul Martin appointee) who was not facing mandatory retirement until 2026. The other judge leaving is Ian Binnie, appointed by Chretien and otherwise scheduled for forced retirement in 2014. After the two new judges are named, then 4 of the 9 judges on our Supreme Court will have been appointed by Stephen Harper. The next scheduled mandatory retirement is November 16th, 2013, with one more retirement in 2014.

That means that by the time this majority Parliament ends in 2015, 6 of 9 Supreme Court of Canada judges will have been appointed by Stephen Harper.


  1. I have to assume both kept quiet until after the election specifically so that there wouldn't be a political squabble over it.

    It's possible they were hanging on in hopes of not being replaced by Harper, although I really have no idea if either of them actually has strong enough political leanings to care; I'm just speculating.

  2. I think it's better to appoint a couple of socially conservative judges (if such an animal exists).

    For quite a while now the SCOC has been absurdly predictable in their rulings.

    Come on! Really, does ANYBODY really think the whole SSM ruling wasn't decided completely in the justices minds before they even read a single word on the description of the case?

    A couple of socially conservative justices would put the breaks on the activism of the courts.

    Mind you, I'm not going to hold my breath. Harper will cave.

  3. Since the courts, our bureaucracy and such are stacked with leftists and liberals of every stripe, I think adding a couple of social conservatives, cultural conservatives or traditionalist conservatives would add some balance to this institution. Traditionalists, by their very nature, would be less activist and would do a good job of presenting legal argument against the activism of the other judges.

  4. The only thing required is to appoint judges who are not judicial activists, who understand that their role is to apply the laws not to legislate. I am sick and tired of these judicial activists who believe their role is to make laws.

  5. Three of the nine justices must be from Quebec (to represent the 23.9% of their population) and since 2 of those are retiring he's restricted in that regard.

    Precedence has a further 3 of nine from Ontario and since 2 of those are retiring, he's restricted again by locale.

  6. Why do right wingers so paranoid about our government being crowded with left wingers? Although I am not one myself, I believe that since most are liberals, it says something about our society. Let's face it, Canadian society is moderate and liberal. And I think that Harper should appoint just that. Moderates.