Appointing Our Judges Kyle Rector

1. Judicial activism is the idea that judges are becoming more independent from the government and starting to impose their own opinion when judging cases. These opinions they are using are said to be incorrect ways of interpreting the law. The judge or judge s opinion is said to be biased by political or personal reasons. So basically judicial activism is exaggerating an interpretation of the law based on one s political or personal beliefs. 2.

In Favour
The provincial government believes that they should have a say in federal government because the federal government has such power. If we elect our justices then it will undermine the supreme courts opinion The judges would need to follow their platform and would need to make decisions based on what they said they would do when they were running Canadian governments have always appointed justices and its worked so far so why change it. If we change it the protection of majority rights may be trampled because the judges will look to satisfy the general population

Not in Favour
Should be changed because many Canadians believe the courts are becoming too powerful the citizens are losing their power A poll was released in 2002 found that 2 in 3 Canadians wanted elected justices Needs to be review of the appointments by elected officials because they are straying further and further from the legal status quo There given the job until the age of 75 so society should know more about the judges before they are appointed since they hold such a high position. If we start electing them it will be shorter appointment process and will save time and money

3. I think that the compromise solution would not work because like it s stated in the textbook, giving citizens the power to elect court would limit the judge s ability to interpret the law. Of course there has to be a certain extent to which judges are allowed to interpret the law but by having them elected due to how they say they will judge, they will be limited to interpreting the law in the way they had presented prior. Courts are supposed to be able to function independently but by having them elected by citizens there not being able to do that. 4. Personally, I believe that the way our justices are appointed is a good way for our country. If we look at the United States of America, their justices are elected into power. This causes the justices to campaign and have an agenda, meaning they are no longer looking at their qualifications or their views, but their ability to sway the public. I believe this is completely the wrong way to do so because in all honesty the public knows nothing about judges and only know what they want, not necessarily what is best for society. Most people would vote solely on their needs and would turn the elections into a popularity contest. The way justices are

appointed in Canada, is completely unbiased. I believe that the rule that every judge must practice law for at least 10 years, this ensures that the judges will have enough practice that they will know how to handle every situation and know what is best for society. The application for lawyers wanting to become judges, I believe is again, a fair and unbiased way of deciding if they are qualified. This way we know for sure that the lawyer is serious enough, if they go through the entire process; it also ensures that not just anybody is becoming a judge and often limits it to the best of best, which obviously benefits our society.