|
|
| |
Antonio Lamer
|
|
Dispensing Justice From The Shadows
|
| |
|
| Edmonton - Monday, November 25, 2002 - by: Ron Thornton |
| |
|
|
circus
|
In the United States, Supreme Court Justices must go through a
vetting process that retired Canadian Chief Justice Antonio Lamer has termed
in published reports as being a political "circus." One certainly could
not classify the process that selected Lamer and those presently sitting on the bench
in such a fashion. No, the term 'circus' brings to mind visions of elephants and
tigers, the flying trapeze and the high wire, along with the smells of popcorn and
sawdust. Our process of selection, with the anointed so chosen at the sole discretion
of a single person in the form of our Prime Minister from a short list submitted
by his Minister of Justice, is anything but a circus. It appears to me that when
our Supreme Court acts to give social exiles in our prisons the vote, to cite a recent
example, that the process produces what can best be described as a troop of clowns
rather than well-rounded, well-scrutinized circus performers. |
|
|
|
|
invent
rights
|
It takes a special person to stand the test of public scrutiny,
one who must demonstrate their mettle, their character, and their views before a
legislative committee during a confirmation process. We, the people, need to know
more about those who may radically interpret our laws in ways never envisioned by
our legislators, invent rights on their own initiative, and take to themselves the
powers that the framers of our constitution had placed in the hands of our elected
representatives. |
|
|
|
|
expectations
|
Wouldn't it be nice to publically review these people and their
past judgements so at least we have an idea as to what to expect? We can give much
thanks to Chief Justice Lamer, as outlined in a Time magazine article
three years ago, for ruling that a divorced spouse was no longer free from an ex-mate,
but obliged to assist in medical costs accrued long after that union had been dissolved.
Treaty rights that once allowed for sustenance fishing provisions for aboriginals
suddenly included commercial rights as well. The fitness standards required to be
a firefighter were tossed out when a woman who failed the test was viewed to be the
victim of "systemic discrimination." |
|
|
|
|
earn
respect
|
Yet, when it comes to putting such decisions to the test of public
scrutiny, well, that is another matter. On the topic of the judicial system, in 1998
Lamer was quoted as saying, |
"Watch it, criticize it, control
it properly, yes, but judge-bashing must stop. The court process is like a psychodrama,
and the actors, or judges, have come to command a certain degree of respect, or it's
chaos and the whole system falls apart."
|
| Still, there are some who believe that, like most of us, judges
shouldn't command respect, they should earn it. In fact, it seems he believes the
only outlet for our displeasure with a judge many view as running amok is to get
rid of the guy who selected him. Lamer says that should a prime minister make a bad
appointment |
"you turf them out."
|
| Sure, but it would appear that is easier said than done, especially
if you hail from the west. Meanwhile, such nominees can continue to slip through
the side door to avoid the public scrutiny that only a committee made up of our elected
representatives can provide, while the rest of us brace for the decisions they might
blind side us with at some later date. |
|
|
|
|
politics
|
Of course, we wouldn't want to, in any way, politicize the Court.
Justice Lamer, a former Liberal youth executive from Montreal from
1960-1966, was appointed to the Quebec Superior Court in 1969 and to the Quebec
Court of Appeal in 1978 by the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau. His
appointment to the Supreme Court was made in 1980 by Trudeau, though
it can be said it was Brian Mulroney who made him Chief Justice in
1990. Still, me thinks that maybe there is more than a touch of politics already
involved. |
|
|
|
|
veto
power
|
With that being the case, then would it not be prudent to have
our nominees for the Canadian Supreme Court stand before a public confirmation
body, to undergo the scrutiny that is required of even the least elected public official?
Should such individuals be prepared to explain their previous decisions, to be answerable
for their views before becoming unaccountable members of an institution that essentially
gives them veto power over the laws passed by our duly elected Parliament?
Isn't it then better to affirm our future Justices through the light provided by
a political "circus" than to allow them to slide in to office under the
shadow of anonymity? |
| |
|
|
|
Ron
Thornton
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Retrun to Ensign
- Return to Saskatchewan
News
|
| |
| This page is a story posted on Ensign and/or Saskatchewan
News, both of which are daily web sites offering a variety of material from scenic
images, political commentary, information and news. These publications are the work
of Faster Than Light Communications . If you would like to comment on this story or you wish to contact
the editor of these sites please send us email. |
| |
|
Editor : Timothy W. Shire
Faster Than Light Communication
Box 1776, Tisdale, Saskatchewan, Canada, S0E 1T0
306 873 2004
|
|
|
