If you are a Canadian in need of a quick smug self-satisfaction fix, look no further: nationalpost.com/news/canada/wh….
If, however, you think seriously about our Supreme Court, you probably already know that, contrary to popular belief, Canadian courts are ideological―even if their ideological homogeneity makes this easy to overlook: nationalmagazine.ca/Blog/September….
And while Canadians don't care much about #SCC appointments, they should! In just the last couple of months, the #SCC read free trade out of the constitution, proclaimed that administrative decision-makers can have "unlimited" powers, and eviscerated religious freedom.
In some of these cases at least, there have been powerful dissents. Not all Canadian judges are quite interchangeable, and who gets appointed to the #SCC matters more than those engaged in self-congratulation care to recognize.
By the way, there are some big bloopers in that NP article: for one, Canadian courts don't just interpret the Charter; we have a Constitution Act, 1867, and as the #Comeau case showed, its interpretation can be as difficult as that of its contemporary the 14th Amendment.
For another, no serious originalist today thinks that it's enough to say that something didn't exist in 1868 to show that it's not constitutionally required now. (Incidentally, there are Canadian originalists. Talk to them! ;) )
Lastly, at the risk of pedantry: "the upholding of Obamacare" did in fact happen despite Justice Kennedy being inclined to side with the conservative side of the #SCOTUS―both generally and in NFIB v Sebelius. /End
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.