4 ms·

> Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court’s four liberals in the majority. The US supreme court is a special kind of circus. For the life of me, I

> Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court’s four liberals in the majority. The US supreme court is a special kind of circus. For the life of me, I can't remember any of the names of the justices on the Canadian supreme court. Its extremely uneventful, and even if there have been controversies, they were so minor or rare that I can't remember them. The US on the other hand... The partisanship is so blatant and just accepted. And not only that, the controversy. I am still astounded that Kavanugh was approved after he started ranting openly about clinton conspiracy theories, awkwardly asking people if they like beer, and lying about common terms like "devil's triangle".

tyre 6y ago
The United States has a different system of government from Canada so it's not surprising that there are differences. Given the primacy of our Constitution and the Supreme Court's role in interpreting whether a law is consistent with our our Constitution, choosing justices is a rather existential question.
- bryanlarsen 6y ago
  What differences? The Supreme Court of Canada is in essence directly appointed by the Prime Minister so is very vulnerable to politicization. The Supreme Court is also responsible for interpreting whether a law is consistent with our Constitution so it's just as existential.
  - mamon 6y ago
    > The Supreme Court of Canada is in essence directly appointed by the Prime Minister And that's the crucial difference: if a Supreme Court judge in Canada starts misbehaving I guess Prime Minister can dismiss them just as easily. In the US judges are appointed for life, so if the wrong person gets appointed that choice will haunt us for a few decades.
    - bryanlarsen 6y ago
      The Prime Minister cannot dismiss judges.
  - fatbird 6y ago
    I actually agree with tyre on this. Canada has the Westminster system, meaning a Parliament where one or more parties forms a government. In Canada particularly, party discipline is near absolute: you vote with your party or your party kicks you out. This means legislation is really passed on a party level. A party with a majority basically passes the legislation it wants to, with none of the horse-trading and whipping and deal-making that is common in the U.S. A minority gov't has to make a deal with another party to pass legislation, but that's between two entities, not the tens or hundreds of congresspeople who need to be corralled. The result of this is basically higher quality legislation: no loopholes to gain this Senator's support, no watering down or poison pills; but also, no extremist bills with clauses to trade away to buy support. The gov't passes the legislation it wants to, in the form it wants to, for good or ill. As a result, I believe, matters reaching the Supreme Court of Canada really are more narrow legal issues, not another avenue of attack on legislation. There can be significant rulings with broad implications, but overall, Canada's Supreme Court isn't a battleground because legislation isn't a mess offering a variety of vectors of attack. It's more internally coherent.
xpe 6y ago
The reality is more complicated. Supreme Court decisions may be explained by (1) partisan views; (2) differences in judicial philosophy; and even (3) pragmatic views (e.g. 'what can the country handle right now?'). As to learning what specifically motivates the justices, this is a lengthy topic. There is a lot to chew on. Actors outside the Supreme Court regularly try to influence it in many ways. Some want it to be more partisan, for example. Some want to make the court more insulated from elections of the president and senators. Some want to modify the structure of the Court itself.

tyre 6y ago

The United States has a different system of government from Canada so it's not surprising that there are differences. Given the primacy of our Constitution and the Supreme Court's role in interpreting whether a law is consistent with our our Constitution, choosing justices is a rather existential question.

bryanlarsen 6y ago
What differences? The Supreme Court of Canada is in essence directly appointed by the Prime Minister so is very vulnerable to politicization. The Supreme Court is also responsible for interpreting whether a law is consistent with our Constitution so it's just as existential.
- mamon 6y ago
  > The Supreme Court of Canada is in essence directly appointed by the Prime Minister And that's the crucial difference: if a Supreme Court judge in Canada starts misbehaving I guess Prime Minister can dismiss them just as easily. In the US judges are appointed for life, so if the wrong person gets appointed that choice will haunt us for a few decades.
  - bryanlarsen 6y ago
    The Prime Minister cannot dismiss judges.
- fatbird 6y ago
  I actually agree with tyre on this. Canada has the Westminster system, meaning a Parliament where one or more parties forms a government. In Canada particularly, party discipline is near absolute: you vote with your party or your party kicks you out. This means legislation is really passed on a party level. A party with a majority basically passes the legislation it wants to, with none of the horse-trading and whipping and deal-making that is common in the U.S. A minority gov't has to make a deal with another party to pass legislation, but that's between two entities, not the tens or hundreds of congresspeople who need to be corralled. The result of this is basically higher quality legislation: no loopholes to gain this Senator's support, no watering down or poison pills; but also, no extremist bills with clauses to trade away to buy support. The gov't passes the legislation it wants to, in the form it wants to, for good or ill. As a result, I believe, matters reaching the Supreme Court of Canada really are more narrow legal issues, not another avenue of attack on legislation. There can be significant rulings with broad implications, but overall, Canada's Supreme Court isn't a battleground because legislation isn't a mess offering a variety of vectors of attack. It's more internally coherent.

xpe 6y ago

The reality is more complicated. Supreme Court decisions may be explained by (1) partisan views; (2) differences in judicial philosophy; and even (3) pragmatic views (e.g. 'what can the country handle right now?'). As to learning what specifically motivates the justices, this is a lengthy topic. There is a lot to chew on. Actors outside the Supreme Court regularly try to influence it in many ways. Some want it to be more partisan, for example. Some want to make the court more insulated from elections of the president and senators. Some want to modify the structure of the Court itself.