Thread by @tim4hire

Gentle reminder that courts can, among other things, order an interlocutory stay on the application of a law/measure. In other words, a law would not operate until the courts have determined if it is valid. So, @ABDanielleSmith's examples are wrong.

#ableg #abpoli #ucpldr
1/

https://twitter.com/tylerrdawson/status/1567160437669785602

Under option 2, the Province, after filing its initial court application challenging the federal law/measure, could file a motion for the interlocutory stay. This would be heard and decided very quickly (usually within a few weeks of the initial court application).

2/

Courts do not, of course, automatically grant stays; they decide based on how well the facts meet the legal test for one. But this example creates a compellng case for a stay being granted as, in the absence of one, the litigation would become moot before it is decided.

3/

The main difference is that it would be an independent judiciary that would be deciding on the stay in accordance with established jurisprudence, as opposed to a Legislature doing so on a partisan/political basis.

4/

Note that the interlocutory stay could also be sought in the 3rd option. If the Sovereignty Act is invoked, the federal government could seek a stay of its operation in addition to challenging the constitutionality of the Act.

5/

Bottom line:

There is a process that respects rule of law and the role of an independent judiciary to adjudicate the federal law/measure, and which can suspend the law/measure's operation until the courts can make a ruling.

6/

This seems more sensible than a process that tries to usurp the role of the courts and which may not even achieve its desired goal in the short term much less the long.

7/7