(LifeSiteNews) – Canadian commentary on the United States is almost always an exercise in insufferable back-patting, and nowhere is that more true than when columnists opine on the differences between our top courts.
In America, Canadian pundits note smugly, the Supreme Court is partisan and political, unlike in Canada, where we are so well-governed that we don’t even know who our justices are. The latest example of this cringe is from the National Observer which published a column with this pretentious headline: “You probably don’t know who’s on our Supreme Court. Let’s keep it that way.”
The Observer, of course, pinpointed the overturn of Roe v. Wade as a particularly egregious example of the court’s partisanship (Roe v. Wade itself and the subsequent decision to uphold it, of course, were not political). The columnist in question then managed to make a string of mistakes, including repeating the popular falsehood that justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch had promised not to overturn Roe (they simply affirmed it as a longstanding precedent, which it was and is no longer.) Canada’s court, on the other hand, is a model of stability because Canadians don’t seem to care about it much.
But the only reason that Canadian liberals are so pleased by this state of affairs is because Canada’s Supreme Court is willing to throw out its own precedents in its relentless pursuit of maximal liberalism. It is Canada’s Supreme Court that consistently strikes blows against religious freedom; it is Canada’s Supreme Court that created the euthanasia regime now viewed the world over as a cautionary tale (“if we’re not careful, we’ll end up like Canada.”)
If, on the other hand, the Supreme Court ruled on religious liberty, or abortion, or assisted suicide in a way that liberals do not like, their tune would change immediately, and we would be treated to a string of columns howling about how Canada’s top court became Americanized.
Progressives view their beliefs as normative, and if institutions support their agenda, then all is well. If, however, justices or politicians have the temerity to oppose them, then democracy is suddenly dying. Remember the hysteria about Stephen Harper, the social liberal with some fiscal smarts, and how he was going to destroy the country?
This is not even to mention the fact that Canada’s Supreme Court is politicized – but only one side is playing the game. Harper stacked Canadian courts with progressive justices who then overturned nearly the entirety of his legacy in around fifteen minutes and gave us a lethal suicide regime to boot (Trudeau passed the legislation; the justices who found a Charter right to suicide were Harper appointees). If a Conservative prime minister wanted to appoint a pro-life justice, we’d be told that real fascism had actually arrived.
You may remember that back when Justin Trudeau was in the process of getting rid of Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould for refusing to go along with his unethical behavior, someone – probably on Trudeau’s team – leaked to the press that Trudeau was disturbed by one of Wilson-Raybould’s Supreme Court nominee recommendations. Why? Because, as the CBC put it:
Wilson-Raybould’s pick puzzled Trudeau but he became disturbed after doing some research into [Glenn] Joyal’s views on the charter, the sources said. Joyal had criticized the judiciary for broadly interpreting charter rights and expanding them to apply to things not explicitly mentioned in the charter or, in his view, intended by provincial premiers when they agreed to enshrine a charter in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s liberal interpretation has led to things like legalization of same-sex marriage, the right of women to choose to have an abortion and the legalization of medical assistance in dying, among other things – developments Trudeau has celebrated.
So, Trudeau and the Liberals ensure that only liberal justices who support their agenda get put on the Supreme Court – no pro-lifers allowed! And conveniently for them, the last Conservative prime minister also put liberals on the court. And that is what leftist pundits mean when they say that Canada’s top court isn’t partisan – that there is not a single judge who disagrees with their beliefs.
