SUPREME COURT NOMINEE SINGS A SWEET SONG
With the latest supreme court nominee, Justice Marshall Rothstein, stating that he is no activist and not much else, fears over the recent Conservative decision to publicly vet nominees seems to have evaporated.
Rothstein was straight forward, candid where he could be, and appeared very likable. In a surprise announcement, Mr. Rothstein suggested that the judiciary should stop its political activism and should focus on the laws of the land. He suggested that because of our charter and the problems that it has created with activist judges, that the judiciary must rule carefully as to not usurp the will and intent of the legislature. The legislature, after all, represents the will of the people; you and I.
Some parties are still not willing to accept the brief question period. They suggest that it could become a media circus as it has become in the U.S., and that it could scare off some potential nominees.
To the first charge, I declare that our vetting is much different, with the last word being our prime ministers regardless of how our MP’s or senators feel. The process in the United States is not seriously flawed either. Their system is simply the circus that it is because of certain politicians who insist on grandstanding and furthering their own extreme liberal agenda as opposed to truly doing what is best for their country.
I believe that most Canadians who understand how our parliamentary system is supposed to function are more concerned about the way in which our democratically elected representatives are having their voices and will subjugated by a supreme court that constantly rules their legislation as unconstitutional. We need a judiciary that will be less likely to take on the role of social activists.
For the most part, I feel that this new system will indeed achieve its objective, and that is to make the selection of the people who wield the power to redefine our world more transparent. The court has for too long been built by too few for their own purpose. While the court and its participants do strive to remain neutral, I believe that a person’s underlying character will dictate the course of that person’s reasoning.
I am disappointed that all of our political parties can not see the obvious benefits of a more open selection. It seems that once again, only one party truly intends to institute any real reforms to our government; reforms that are sorely needed at this time.