Judicial Activism In Canada
Judicial activism believes that judges assume a role as independent policy makers on behalf of society that goes beyond their traditional role as interpreters of the Constitution and laws. Prior to the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, the duty of Supreme Court justices was to interpret law, not took it upon themselves to make law. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court justices play a more predominant role in shaping government policy and legislation today than they did prior to 1982. Judicial activism in Canada has produced results that have been perceived as problematic by legislatures. The potential for the Supreme Court justices to interfere with the making of government’s judicial-policy has led to differing opinions
…show more content…
With the Charter in place, the courts could adjudicate not only upon the division of powers between different levels of government, but also upon the legality and constitutionality of laws enacted by Parliament and the provincial legislatures. Critics of judicial activism say that Supreme Court justices make law to arrogate themselves to a duty that only Parliament may legitimately perform. The Harper’s government afraids that the Supreme Court justices can override any law solely based on their personal opinions, and ultimately, there will be no laws before their eyes. Furthermore, the rulings of Supreme Court justices will serve as legal precedents that will provide guidance for other cases, thus, judicial activism becomes a more profound subject for those who serve on the Supreme …show more content…
By making decisions regarding the interest of the society the courts assume responsibilities that belong exclusively to the legislative and executive branches of government. The Supreme Court justices may rule based on what is in their best interest while saying that they are deciding for the good of the society. Moreover, when the Supreme Court justices are appointed, not elected, they may not be the representatives of the public’s view. As a result, judges begin making policy decisions about social or political changes society should make and become “unelected legislators.” By freely interpreting the meaning of the Constitution, the communities’ confidence in the Supreme Court will be undermined. When judicial activism in the Supreme Court wields too much power, it can eventually destruct the essence of
With the Charter in place, the courts could adjudicate not only upon the division of powers between different levels of government, but also upon the legality and constitutionality of laws enacted by Parliament and the provincial legislatures. Critics of judicial activism say that Supreme Court justices make law to arrogate themselves to a duty that only Parliament may legitimately perform. The Harper’s government afraids that the Supreme Court justices can override any law solely based on their personal opinions, and ultimately, there will be no laws before their eyes. Furthermore, the rulings of Supreme Court justices will serve as legal precedents that will provide guidance for other cases, thus, judicial activism becomes a more profound subject for those who serve on the Supreme …show more content…
By making decisions regarding the interest of the society the courts assume responsibilities that belong exclusively to the legislative and executive branches of government. The Supreme Court justices may rule based on what is in their best interest while saying that they are deciding for the good of the society. Moreover, when the Supreme Court justices are appointed, not elected, they may not be the representatives of the public’s view. As a result, judges begin making policy decisions about social or political changes society should make and become “unelected legislators.” By freely interpreting the meaning of the Constitution, the communities’ confidence in the Supreme Court will be undermined. When judicial activism in the Supreme Court wields too much power, it can eventually destruct the essence of