Americans complain their Supreme Court is politically biased

Canada's was not until recent years, but now is worse

Democrats and Repubicans are typically at each others throats about lifetime appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court, each claiming the other will stuff partisan judges into positions of power bypassing the legislative process and effectively enacting laws through jurisprudence. In fact, the American Supreme Court has an admirable record of the opposite, typically upholding the U.S. constitution regardless of the political rhetoric it engenders.

I wish Canada’s Supreme Court was as fair and balanced. It used to be. Today it is both leftist and activist. Judge made law is now dividing Canada with decisions that not only fail to protect the Canadian constitution but also re-interpret that constitution along party lines, typically favouring Canada’s left wing.

Here is the litany of nonsense over the past few years.

• Canadians now have a constitutional right to “assisted suicide” decided under the section of constitution designed to protect life, liberty and security of the person. Eric Arthur Blair, writing as George Orwell saw this “doublespeak” coming in his classic 1949 book simply entitled “1984”.

• People charged with violent crimes now benefit from a “default” position that “Release is favoured at the earliest reasonable opportunity and on the least onerous grounds” putting violent criminals back on the streets only hours after arrest, based on the 2017 decision of the S.C.C. R v Antic. Note the striking similarity to the situation in Democrat controlled cities where recidivist offenders are released to re-offend hours after release in places like Portland, Washington, Seattle, Los Angelese, and San Francisco to name a few.

• In a 2011 decision in Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society the S.C.C. ensured provinces could establish “safe injection sites” for addicts rather than assist them with abstinence and treatment. The court denied the Provinces the ability to rely on the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to prevent such “safe injection sites” finding that laws against possession of narcotics violated Canadians rights to “life, liberty and security of the person” if that possession was within the boundaries of a “safe injection site” but outside of that site drug laws could be enforced. The S.C.C. finds that constitutional rights are now dependent on what piece of land one is standing over.

• The 2022 decision of the S.C.C. in R v Bissonnette found that life in prison with no chance of parole was “cruel and unusual punishment”, a bit of a stretch since such sentences for mass murderers like Bissonette were far from “unusual” and a year in prison’s character does not change with each passing year. It is only a matter of time until Paul Bernardo is back on the streets and able to take the lives of more innocent young women, something he seems to enjoy.

• Justice Rosie Abella wrote a judgment in 2015 that reversed a 1987 S.C.C. judgment that found the “right to strike” was not constitutionally protected, holding in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan that “freedom of assembly” incorporated the “right to strike” and arguably putting an end to “back to work” legislation in Canada regardless of the public harm a widespread or general strike in essential services might wreak on Canada and Canadians.

In Canada, our values are under attack from the left. Crime is rising, homelessness and drug addiction are rampant, veterans are treated as second class citizens and our military is a shambles. If we keep this up, our democracy will be in tatters before long and Canada will become a socialist autocracy, which seems to be in line with Justin Trudeau’s hopes and aspirations.

America’s high court enforces its constitution. Canada’s high court rewrites ours. This does not end well.