The Opposition Of Judicial Activism

To what extent was Pierre Trudeau’s vision of a “just society” actually achieved in Canada in (and since) the 1970s? Canada is a just society because of the changes to women's legal rights, ethnic minority human rights, and multiculturalism.

In the article ‘Public Reason and the Disempowerment of Aboriginal People in Canada’, written by Matthew Tomm, the author begins by providing a general perception towards the aboriginal perspective in the political and legal discussions through the use of a brief narrative. The author then transitions this background information into his argument surrounding this injustice. The author’s argument regarding the struggles of aboriginal people in Canada is clearly identified as a two-part statement. Part I features the obstacle of public justifiability, the idea utilized to actually justify the injustice towards the aboriginal people, defined by the author as “a central idea of contemporary political theory, which says that to be legitimate the laws of a democratic state should be justified to all its citizens” (Tomm 294). Part II illustrates the idea of public justifiability being at work in Canadian courts; regardless of their effort to implement the aboriginal perspectives into the legal system, their ambivalence is causing inefficiency and inconsistency. The author discusses the impact of the principle of public reason, the political liberal stance on the matter, the courts approach and handling of the normative dimensions of aboriginal perspectives, and the injustice of legal pluralism in regards to one being considered superior. All these ideas and events occurring within the law contribute to strengthening the author’s argument. In summary, the author’s argument surrounds

The book “Judicial Tyranny The New Kings of America?” is a compilation of articles and speeches. It is compiled by Mark Sutherland and includes writings from famed Christian personality James C. Dobson Chief Justice Roy Moore, Ambassador Alan Keyes, U.s Attorney General Ed Meese, among others. The book is a call to political action. It is aimed at Christian readers and the writers all argue that Christian politics equals constitutional purism. It is specifically meant to invoke constitutional responses and activism. Each chapter, twenty in all, are a few pages long and systematically decry the current judicial system and explain the lack of constitutional basis for their current level of power.

The Criminal Justice System [in Canada] aims to “deliver justice for all, by convicting and punishing the guilty and helping them to stop offending, while protecting the innocent” (Garside, 2008), however, this definition curated by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies is inherently vague and does not encompass numerous vital aspects associated with the criminal justice system. A key component in the institutional structure of the criminal justice system is the involvement and integration of the government. In Canada, the government openly plays an integral role in the formations of policies, regulations, and procedures within the justice system, however, policies, regulations and procedures that are not directly linked to the criminal

In a 2007 speech by Beverly McLachlin, the Supreme Court of Canada Chief of Justice, she stated that “access to justice promotes social stability” and also that “if people can’t get justice, they will have less respect for the law” (Eberts, 2013). By her words alone, the necessity and importance of legal aid is demonstrated. Socioeconomic status can put individuals at an unfair disadvantage in many aspects of life, especially in regards to legal proceedings. “Legal aid [was] introduced to Canada in the 1970’s” as a way of ensuring fair trial, and decreasing the frequency of common problems that result from misunderstanding of the law, unrepresented litigants and the power of money (Abell, 2010). However, like any tool or procedure used to improve society, there are always imperfections. Legal aid resources have become difficult to obtain financially and situationally, and the quality of this resource is often put into question. Without it, people and the justice system face consequences that need to be resolved in order to achieve the social stability that McLachlin speaks of.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms entrenched under the CA 1982 act in the Canadian constitution is seen as a decisive indicator of national identity by the majority of Canadians. The charter’s role in Canadian society ranges from providing individuals with intrinsic human rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of belief and acts particularly as a concrete limit on ‘tyranny of the majority’, advocating and enforcing basic rights of individuals and minorities. It is however worthy to note that CA 1982’s involvement as a platform to increased activism of the Supreme court in Canada is highly controversial. Employing the charter as a basis to the interpretation of different situations, the Canadian Supreme Court has in many occasions

Aboriginal peoples throughout the world have survived centuries of the horrors of colonization and genocide. Today, they are emerging with new mindfulness and vision. In Canada the old colonial order and its obsession with assimilation of Aboriginal peoples have been replaced by a new constitutional order that respects Aboriginal rights. The Supreme Court of Canada is now actively seeking to achieve the noble constitutional goal of preserving Aboriginal societies (Queen v. Coté, 1996, p.48). The Supreme Court has affirmed that the teaching of Aboriginal rights is a constitutional right in the new order. Chief Justice Lamer has declared:

The debate between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint really grabbed my attention. Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint are two different ways to interpret the constitution and its laws. Both interpretations have their own strengths and weaknesses, which is why it is so hard to come to a final decision of which is acceptable and which is not (in most cases). While at the debate I didn’t realize how many cases have boiled down to these two concepts. There have been many cases ended up being decided by both interpretations.

Since the creation of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 7 has had a brilliant and vital lifespan. Furthermore, cases such as Carter have shown the brilliance and significance of the section in preserving the rights of Canadians. In this essay, I will be discussing section 7 of the Charter, and constructing an argument as to why the section still has its flaws. Thus, although section 7 of the Charter has had an illustrious career, it is still prone to issues that are based upon it being limited to violations that are in accordance with “fundamental justice”. To accomplish the task at hand; I shall firstly, introduce section 7 and also introduce the broad legal and social issue at hand, while also presenting the cases that I will be exploring throughout the essay. Secondly, I shall analyze section 7 on the basis of the research completed by scholars, media reports, and other relevant research materials. Furthermore, I will demonstrate as to how this research has assisted in analyzing and contextualizing the cases I’ve identified. Lastly, I shall conclude by discussing further questions I would like to pursue in the future, and the direction I will take with this.

Judicial Activism is defined as, when a judge rules in the court based on his or her standards of behavior and beliefs concerning what is acceptable and unacceptable. This is not the conventional way that the Court will rule. I feel it has a high impact on the United States and I think the impact is good. It allows for judges to put their personal input in a ruling, which could go against the Constitution but it seem to give the Court’s more of a positive influence. Leaving Americans feeling for more satisfied that there was a fair ruling received. The Constitution allows judges to play an activist role because the Courts are not considered a pure democracy. Instead they are leaders that represent the people.

The first point of discussion is about the court’s role. Since the Charter, countless discussions about the court’s responsibilities have occurred. Regardless of whether it is benefitting Canada or not, it is undeniable that Canada has experienced the “judicializing” of its government . The effect of having the some of the power of Parliament shifted into the hands of the Judiciary. Previously, the judicial branch’s duty is to deal punishments to those who break the law. It was up to

Many scholars in the constitutional legal field for numerous reasons have argued the conceptualisation of standing. The law of standing establishes a series of rules that ultimately determine whether a person who starts legal proceedings is the proper person to do so. Scholars including Patrick Keyzer, Simon Evans as well as Grand Chief Charles Grand Chief Fox all have individual standpoints on how standing can be altered to for a greater constitutional justice. Throughout this essay it shall be argued that the standing tests that are prevalent in today’s constitutional environment limit those that could have grounds for standing but are unable to seek constitutional justice, and how it specifically affects indigenous Australians. When approaching standing from Keyzer and Evans’ standpoints and expanding upon their notions, it can be observed that slightly altering the definition of standing and the tests that insinuate individuals have special interest within cases broadens the scope to allow for an inclusion of the indigenous populations and interest groups. This is one of the ways in which standing can be modified to be more lenient and allow for a broader approach to standing. Additionally, the arguments that Keyzer and Evans push highlight standing within Australia, while on the other hand Grand Chief Fox investigates the effects that standing has and its impact within Canada, these ideas assessed to investigate if Australia can follow the model of standing Canada has

The differences between judicial restraint and judicial activism can be very broad, therefore it is paramount to understand what these two philosophies mean prior to explaining its differences. Judicial restraint and judicial activism has led to a great debate over the years which basically revolves around the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and the laws.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has ensured that the rights of individuals are entrenched in Canadian law and in that, the Constitution serves to raise public awareness of the Courts, rights and legal acts. Not only this, it services individuals for their protection and equality within a Federal setting. The Charter is also believed to have expanded the scope of judicial review in order to maintain balance in the political structure. The practice and procedure of a judicial review is meant to challenge and examine the forms, rules and applications that is relevant in an everyday juncture. But despite this, political theorists such as Bork, Bickle and Mandel have found arguments to challenge the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and judicial

Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. said it the best in his speech to the Text & Teaching Symposium, "We current Justices read the Constitution in the only way that we can: as Twentieth Century Americans." Justice Brennan also called the Constitution a fundamentally public text and called for its use to resolve public issues. If that is true, then the document must be interpreted from today's perspective - Judicial Activism. However, using only that approach would be saying that the work of the original framers was mute. This document is over two hundred years old and still very relevant to today's society. In my opinion, the court needs to find a fine line between activism and restraint or intentionalism