I personally do not think there are many people in this world without political ideology, whether it is moderate or extreme. Similarly, judges that are appointed to our courts are not free of ideology. However, the question must be asked, to what extent?
For the sake of clarity, I will compare and contrast the Supreme Court of the United States with the Supreme Court of Canada as examples.
I do not believe that a Court is a political branch, and Parliament or Congress should be responsible for legislative and political affairs. As a result, judges must be appointed by the President or Prime Minister on a non-partisan/non-ideology basis without votes from partisan Senates.
Supreme Court justices in Canada are nominated by the cabinet and appointed by the Prime Minister. Unlike the United States, these justices are not affiliated with any of the five major Canadian political parties, though the same cannot be said about their ideologies. Judicial appointments are generally not politicized and are appointed with little to no opposition.
It is true that Canadian Prime Ministers and their cabinets, akin to their US counterparts choose Supreme Court justices who have political ideologies that match with their respective parties. However, their judgement does not reflect that. For example, the current Supreme Court of Canada is made up of four justices appointed by the centre to centre-left Liberal Party Prime Ministers Paul Martin (1) and Justin Trudeau (3), whereas the remaining five were appointed by the centre to centre-right Conservative Party Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
A recent case in Ottawa’s Supreme Court is 'Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act'. The court voted in favour of banning insurance companies from obtaining genetic histories of people liberally, something that is probably not supported by the government and opposition alike. In addition, most Supreme Court justices, appointed by PM Harper voted against the Harper Government in many cases while they were in government. For example, 7/9 justices, including Harper appointed ones, ruled in favour of physician-assisted suicide much to the Harper administration's disdain, since political opinions did not matter, as they should not to begin with.
In the United States, Supreme Court nominations are highly politicized. Justices, akin to Canada are chosen by the head of government. However, they have to be confirmed by the Senate, which is always controlled by one party or the other. This can be a problem whenever there is a hung government; for example, Democrat President Barack Obama was unable to appoint a judge with a Republican-controlled senate. Not only does this slow up the court, but it also makes it very easy for the current administration to push their agenda, For example, the Republican Ronald Reagan administration tried to stop abortion rights by selecting justices while Roe v. Wade was in court.
In the US, whatever the court says is final, whereas, in Canada, the notwithstanding clause can be used to reverse a court's decision, which begs a separate question of why Canada’s provinces allow unicameralism and how to reform the federal Canadian Senate.
This results in politicizing the court, which is not right. Political campaigns get dominated by justice nominations, for example, Ruth Baden Ginsburg's replacement was considered to widely be a deciding factor in the 2020 US General Election prior to her passing. Campaigns must be focused on important issues such as taxation, trade, cost of living, healthcare, pharmacare, etc.
I believe that courts should operate as a place that is free of most political biases, as Parliaments exist to do play politics. Courts must be a place where justice is given priority over ideology. That is why most cases in the Supreme Court are not politicized and widely accepted by civilians and the government, so why should the selection process be so politicized that it erodes public trust? Politicizing courts makes it difficult for the public to have any confidence or trust in the justice system.
There should be reforms in the United States justice system, and even the Canadian one to make courts a more non-partisan institution. The first step is to establish a Crown Corporation with a panel of legal experts from each party that select judges based on merit, keeping Parliament and Congress completely out of the selection process When said panel(s) select judges, they should get a simple approval signature from the Governor-General or President. In fact, there should be more checks and balances for federal judges so that they are not taking decisions based on their beliefs. In conclusion, justices in a court must not be operating on a partisan basis, and reforms are highly necessary to regain public confidence in the legal system.
Comments