Politics and supreme spectacles
Re: A spectacle not done in Canada, Oct. 13
tap here to see other videos from our team.
In your analysis of the current public hearings in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee over prospective jurist Amy Coney Barrett, former Canadian Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin sniffs that “people here aren’t appointed (to the Supreme Court) because they represent a certain point of view.” What nonsense. Of course they are. The only real difference is the American system is open to the public, while in Canada, the politicking takes place in the privacy of the Prime Minister’s Office.
Claire Hoy, Toronto
The way Supreme Court judges are chosen in the United States is probably more democratic than in this country. Our southern neighbours make the process public and involve numerous representatives on all sides. In this country a Supreme Court justice is appointed by the prime minister, after he or she is given a list of names, and only after the Governor General concurs. Whoever is chosen to these posts generally incites vigorous arguments and opinions, but the perception of the process does seem like it’s all done behind closed doors. Because it’s composed of members representing the entire country, Parliament should be consulted and the Supreme Court should not be above Parliament.