Ever since I read Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, I have had a fascination with American politics. It fluctuates between the rubbernecking of a bystander at a train wreck to appreciation for the genuine intelligence of some of the participants.
There was a time back in the late 1980s when I was regularly watching the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour on PBS. Listening to and watching Senators discussing issues was a revelation. Compared to so many of the half-wits who represent constituents in Canada, most of these guys were brilliant. What was really driven home to me was that in the United States you have people who are professional politicians, while in Canada the majority in our House of Commons have little or no understanding of the nature of government.
I suppose one could argue back and forth about which is better: having professional politicians lends to having a system of elites running the government instead of having people spend their first term in office simply learning where all the bathrooms are, let alone doing anything constructive. But there can be no doubt that your politicians, from what I saw, were able to comprehend and deal with complex issues at a level exceeding all but our most senior members of parliament.
The only similarity that I could pick up on was that each of our systems is crippled by partisanship. Although, to be fair, I've seen more people cross party lines in your Senate than in our House of Commons. Members of Parliament, especially members of the governing party, are only ever allowed to "vote their conscience" with permission of their party leadership, or risk expulsion from the caucus.
I think this has more to do with our system of government. When a government can be overthrown if a motion goes down to defeat, party loyalty is more about power than philosophy.
Until recently Canada has not had the same system of "checks and balances" that the United States is so rightly famous for: the Judiciary, the Executive, and the Legislative branches of government keeping tabs on each other to ensure that the Constitution is adhered to. Even now it is not an official part of our system of government, but rather a product of circumstances.
Our barely-twenty-five-year-old Charter of Rights and Freedoms has allowed individuals or groups to challenge legislation passed by the House of Commons on Constitutional grounds. If the individual law can be shown to contravene a section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is overturned. The nine justices of the Supreme Court of Canada make any such decision; at least they have the final say in the matter.
Article comments
1 - Al Barger
I appreciate where you're going here, but I'll take exception right there at the end. "My hope is that he continues to be a mystery and not become predictable."
It's good when a musician or filmmaker is unpredictable, taking imaginative twists and turns that no one could have predicted. That's not good for judges, though.
Ideally, courts and jurisprudence should be as clear cut and predictable as humanly possible. We all need to know just exactly what is expected of us. I don't WANT to be constantly thrilled and surprised at the creative genius of the SCOTUS. I want to know what to expect.
2 - gypsyman
My fault: Unclear I relaise. Trying to get across that I would hope he makes decisions based on the merits of the arguements made by the lawyers, and on the facts,precedents, and what your constitution says, not on his politcal/religious idealolgy.
That way no group could predict his behaviour and automatically assume that he would vote their way. A judge should be impartial and be thought of as " one of us" by anyone.