Direct vs. Indirect Blame
Over the next few days and maybe weeks, depending on the ramifications of the Supreme Court's recent ruling on "HealthCare", the opposition parties will accuse the Liberals of forcing the Supreme Court to allow private health insurance because of budget cuts during the mid 1990s. They'll say that waiting times got so painful that the Supreme Court had no other alternative but to allow private care when public care wasn't readily available.
I think this is an ok strategy, but this only lays "indirect" blame on the Prime Minister, and as we saw during the June election campaign, when Jack Layton accused Paul Martin of contributing to homelessness (and therefore to deaths because of people living on the streets), no one in the media bought Layton's rationale, and I don't think they really will this time either.
Blame needs to be more "direct".
Why can't the Liberals be blamed for appointing these "activist" judges? (which is in a way what they are even though I welcome the likely consequences of their ruling - shouldn't this issue be decided by the legislatures?)
Out of the 7 justices, 5 were appointed by Chretien and 2 were appointed by Mulroney. (In actuality, McLachlin was elevated to Chief by Chretien, so it's more like 5.5 for Chretien and 1.5 for Mulroney.)
Out of the 4 justices who ruled against the Quebec government, 1 was a justice appointed by Mulroney, 1 was Chief Justice McLachlin who was appointed by both Chretien AND Mulroney, and the other 2 were direct Chretien appointees.
In the United States, President's take both credit and blame for their Supreme Court choices when their legacies are examined (Bush Sr. takes credit for Justice Thomas and blame for Justice Souter, Reagan gets credit for elevating Rehnqvist, nominating Scalia, but a bit of slack for nominating O'Connor and Kennedy - only moderate conservatives).
Why are Prime Ministers totally unaccountable for their Supreme Court choices? I know it's partially because ideology (liberal vs. conservative) does not play as large a role in the Canadian court system, but there should still be SOME political blame (or even credit for that matter) when Supreme Court justices make choices that are either popular or unpopular.
I think this is an ok strategy, but this only lays "indirect" blame on the Prime Minister, and as we saw during the June election campaign, when Jack Layton accused Paul Martin of contributing to homelessness (and therefore to deaths because of people living on the streets), no one in the media bought Layton's rationale, and I don't think they really will this time either.
Blame needs to be more "direct".
Why can't the Liberals be blamed for appointing these "activist" judges? (which is in a way what they are even though I welcome the likely consequences of their ruling - shouldn't this issue be decided by the legislatures?)
Out of the 7 justices, 5 were appointed by Chretien and 2 were appointed by Mulroney. (In actuality, McLachlin was elevated to Chief by Chretien, so it's more like 5.5 for Chretien and 1.5 for Mulroney.)
Out of the 4 justices who ruled against the Quebec government, 1 was a justice appointed by Mulroney, 1 was Chief Justice McLachlin who was appointed by both Chretien AND Mulroney, and the other 2 were direct Chretien appointees.
In the United States, President's take both credit and blame for their Supreme Court choices when their legacies are examined (Bush Sr. takes credit for Justice Thomas and blame for Justice Souter, Reagan gets credit for elevating Rehnqvist, nominating Scalia, but a bit of slack for nominating O'Connor and Kennedy - only moderate conservatives).
Why are Prime Ministers totally unaccountable for their Supreme Court choices? I know it's partially because ideology (liberal vs. conservative) does not play as large a role in the Canadian court system, but there should still be SOME political blame (or even credit for that matter) when Supreme Court justices make choices that are either popular or unpopular.
posted by Japnaam Singh at
9:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home