As I said earlier today, (quote) while the Canadian liberal set and their mainstream media feign righteous indignation (again!)—this time over a Conservative MPs absolutely spot-on analysis of a Supreme Court Justice’s wannabe God-like remarks (unquote), the record shows that some real Liberal thoroughbreds feel much the same way.
References by many people—in and out of politics—to the Supreme Court Justices acting as though they believe they have God-like qualities or abilities, are ubiquitous.
In a December 2005 Globe and Mail op/ed, aid to Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau one of his unsuccessful candidates for parliament (later a BC Liberal provincial minister), Gordon Gibson (a good man—make no mistake) said this:
Gods – or nine well-paid lawyers with jobs for life
By Gordon Gibson
The Globe & Mail, Dec 16, 2005The Greeks had a word for it: hubris. It means overweening or excessive pride and arrogance. It is a disease of the powerful.
Two weeks ago, a very powerful person, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada, gave a speech in New Zealand that contained one big worry for those concerned with our democratic balance.
She said, in effect, that the law is what the Supreme Court says the law is. “The task of the judge, confronted with conflict between a constitutional principle of the highest order on the one hand, and an ordinary law or executive act on the other, is to interpret and apply the law as a whole – including unwritten constitutional principles.”
Think about that. Who decides what these “unwritten constitutional principles” are? Why, the judges. This can trump clearly enacted laws?
Might this amend even the Constitution? Well, yes. Judge McLachlin also said that “even inclusive, written constitutions leave much out, requiring us to look at convention and usage.” So the judges may supplement that list. They may discover new constitutional doctrine. And if they do, remember they really are “supreme.”
[… SNIP …]
The court is well known for its “living tree” view of the Constitution – that the meaning must change as society changes. But there is a danger here. Given a pair of shears, fertilizer and a number of years, a skilled gardener can shape a tree in any direction. So can the court. With parliamentary supremacy eroded, the check and balance for this no longer exists.
Strip away the grand stone building of the Supreme Court and the judges’ ermine robes and what do we really have? God-like creatures? No. Something much less: nine well-paid lawyers with jobs for life.
[… snip …]
Another bunch of top people in Ottawa, these ones with jobs for life, think they own the law. And you know what? They do. Because they say so.
Who in this election campaign will have something to say about that?
You can read that whole op/ed here—and it’s excellent reading (2 minutes and you’re done).
And in a February 2005 op/ed in the Globe and Mail Mr. Gibson wrote:
Stop! In the name of love (for Canada)
GORDON GIBSON
[Globe and Mail] Print Edition 02/02/05 Page A15The people who sit on the Supreme Court of Canada are not gods. They are nine well-paid lawyers with jobs for life till 75, accountable to no one. It is important to remember this fact of ordinary humanity. It means that, while their decisions require compliance, they do not always deserve respect.
[…]
… which helps put a lie to the remarks I heard on the state-run media last night (as blogged here)—in that ubiquitous university professor snippet of wisdom that every single liberal media story MUST include, the CBC asked Professor Chris Levy, whom I have never heard of, as usual, who informed us with his uncommon wisdom about the Maurice Vellacott affair:
“There is a real issue, uh, uh, of an attempt by the Conservative Party to downplay what is a ultimately a significant strand of its thinking”.
PTBC was founded by Mr. Johannesen in 2000.
Contact Mr. Johannesen about this article using this form. Please refer to article's title.
FOLLOW @JoelJohannesen ON X!
- Say something. - Friday October 25, 2024 at 6:03 pm
- Keep going, or veer right - Monday August 26, 2024 at 4:30 pm
- Hey Joel, what is “progressive?” - Friday August 2, 2024 at 11:32 am
