- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 62,465
- Reaction score
- 19,293
- Location
- Lower Mainland of BC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
From FOX News
The chief justice of California’s Supreme Court announced that she quietly left the Republican Party over the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye told CALmatters on Thursday that she made her decision to re-register as a no-party voter following Kavanaugh’s contentious confirmation hearings.
“You can draw your own conclusions,” she said.
COMMENT:-
OK, not really a big deal, but it does highlight something that puzzles me.
In Canada, not only would a Provincial Chief Justice NOT make such an announcement, but no one would pay any attention to it if they did. In fact, it is "standard practice" (i.e. something that is almost universally done, even though there is no legal requirement to do it) that, in Canada, ALL judges resign from ALL political parties immediately upon accepting a judicial appointment and, after that, take absolutely no part in political party affairs (nor do they comment on them in public).
What puzzles me is "Why is it preferable to have judges, who are supposed to make apolitical decisions based solely on what the law IS, that are openly political rather than not?". Can anyone answer that question for me?
If you were involved in a legal dispute, which would you prefer to be hearing your case:
California's chief justice leaves GOP; cites Kavanaugh confirmation to Supreme Court
The chief justice of California’s Supreme Court announced that she quietly left the Republican Party over the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye told CALmatters on Thursday that she made her decision to re-register as a no-party voter following Kavanaugh’s contentious confirmation hearings.
“You can draw your own conclusions,” she said.
COMMENT:-
OK, not really a big deal, but it does highlight something that puzzles me.
In Canada, not only would a Provincial Chief Justice NOT make such an announcement, but no one would pay any attention to it if they did. In fact, it is "standard practice" (i.e. something that is almost universally done, even though there is no legal requirement to do it) that, in Canada, ALL judges resign from ALL political parties immediately upon accepting a judicial appointment and, after that, take absolutely no part in political party affairs (nor do they comment on them in public).
What puzzles me is "Why is it preferable to have judges, who are supposed to make apolitical decisions based solely on what the law IS, that are openly political rather than not?". Can anyone answer that question for me?
If you were involved in a legal dispute, which would you prefer to be hearing your case:
- a judge who makes their decision based on what the law IS rather than what they think the law SHOULD BE; or
- a judge who makes their decision based on what they think the law SHOULD BE rather than what the law IS?
- NOTE - You are NOT given the option of "a judge who makes their decision based on what they think the law SHOULD BE - provided that the judge thinks that the law SHOULD BE is the same as what you think the law SHOULD be - rather than what the law IS.