In the To have to of June 28, the professor of literature Patrick Moreau returns to the political angle of the invalidation of the judgment Roe v. wade by the Supreme Court of the United States, where, like Canada, the judges are appointed by the government in power, according to its ideological movement. Regarding the solutions, two questions come to mind: how to ensure the impartiality of the appointment of judges? Then, within the framework of a democracy ensured by the separation of powers, if the judicial power becomes politicized, how do the legislative and executive powers compensate for this deviation?
To the first question, we could answer the drawing of lots. For the second, why not refer to the questioning of the Federal Minister of Justice, David Lametti, explained on 1er june in The Press, whether recourse to the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution should be invoked before or after the decision of the courts? Mr. Lametti criticizes the CAQ government for having passed Bill 21, which contains substantive amendments to the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms, under a gag order to put an end to parliamentary debates. So, are there consequences to the laxity of the federal Liberal government, which avoids passing laws based on the progress of society? […]
This denial by the legislator in the judiciary only adds to the burden of the justice system. Watch the documentary Stop Jordan. The scar (2022), by journalist Alain Gravel, we can say that the Supreme Court of Canada has already transformed this democratic drift into an executive instrument.
To see in video