5 ms·

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

by 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.

by tyre 6y ago

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.