Table of ContentsIntroductionJudges Have Excessive PowerConclusionReferencesIntroductionThe Supreme Court of Canada, considered the guardian of the Constitution, had the advantage of issuing general judicial decisions after entrenchment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 (Kelly, 2004). The courts before the Charter had authority, but specifically over matters relating to the sharing of powers (Kelly, 2004). The introduction of the Charter has been identified as the most radical break ever in Canada's constitutional and legal traditions (Hiebert, 2010). Through the Charter, the nation was granted fundamental rights and freedoms, and the courts were the only institution responsible for verifying the conformity of legislation with rights, as well as developing and amending laws ( Hiebert, 2010). The Charter has significantly strengthened the role of the judiciary in Canada, but has also contributed to increased conflict. The conflict can be analyzed through the excessive power of judges in Canada and the undemocratic judicial power perpetuated by the Supreme Court. Elected governments that hold sovereignty over the nation do not retain sufficient authority over public policies in which judges have excessive power, judicial independence, and act undemocratically outside of the nation's views because checks and balances are difficult to impose to guarantee respect for democracy. The principles of Canada are respected. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay This essay will be divided into two parts: the first section will discuss the excessive power that the judiciary wields, and the second section will discuss the undemocratic values ​​perpetuated by the judiciary. Both sections will also present an argument for why elected governments do not hold sufficient authority over public authority. Judges have excessive power Canadian judges are people who understand the legal principles in force within the nation (Dyzenhaus, 2010). They are essentially arbiters in constitutional cases (Bazowski, 2009). Judges state the legal authority in which they are authorized to make decisions relating to the law, and in doing so they interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to conclude various cases. Judges have too much power in the sense that they have the final say in legal proceedings and are given jurisdiction to handle the country's most serious cases. When the Charter was being developed, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau often spoke of rights and freedoms as if they were fragile, unproblematic content that would not be disrupted by the new powers given to judges Canadians (Russell and Howe, 2001). Before the Charter, the only constitutional conflicts that arose concerned the sharing of powers (Bazowski, 2009). Judges were ultimately given the power to adjudicate and regulate disputes over which the government had authority to regulate activities (Bazowski, 2009). This break essentially gave judges the opportunity to gain power, as regulating the highest levels of authority in the country was a very distinct and important responsibility. This form of regulation was considered a constitutional decision (Bazowski, 2009) and judges had the final say on major policy issues. At the Supreme Court of Canada, even before the enshrinement of the Charter of Rights, the judges developed a more activist attitude. role(Bazowski, 2009), in which they gained more power. These changes were introduced by the former Minister of Justice, Pierre Trudeau (Bazowski, 2009). The reforms included changing the appeals process to give the court full control over the cases it would hear and thus allowing the courts to determine which areas of law they would influence with their judgments (Bazowski, 2009), thereby allowing for courts to determine the importance of issues relating to the law and setting a precedent for future cases. The Charter further strengthened the power of the courts by allowing them to assess the constitutionality of government actions and strike down laws found to be unconstitutional, as the Charter emphasized state conduct (Bazowski, 2009). In addition to dealing with divisional power conflicts, the charter allowed the courts to develop more responsibilities which were amplified by the charter (Hiebert, 1999). Courts have been able to rule on a wide range of political and social issues, from major cases such as cruise missile testing in Canadian airspace to euthanasia (Hiebert, 1999). When analyzing both the Charter and judicial decisions, there are many cases in which the courts appear to hold great power. Faced with the most heinous and serious crimes, the Supreme Court of Canada has been able to finalize decisions regarding the outcome of specific cases. Through this, the judges were able to set a precedent that still has value in legal proceedings today. Judicial independence contributes to the excessive power available to judges. Judicial independence maintains that court judges should not suffer interference from the government, whether it is their decisions, their financial security and their irremovability that ensure their permanence (Gelinas and Brosseau, 2015). Courts must not be influenced by political structures in a way that could influence their decisions. This system is essentially a private entity over which government officials cannot exert any constraints. The power perpetuated by the Supreme Court governs public policy. Each level of government is limited in its ability to pursue legislative priorities (Hiebert, 2010). Governments have the power to create and amend laws, but when it comes to applying laws and interpreting them in accordance with the Charter, they tend to abstain, hence why judges retain so much of power within the system. Essentially, the government is supposed to avoid interfering with the law, to avoid coming into conflict with interest groups, for example (Hiebert, 2010). It is advantageous for the government to stay out of the initial legal proceedings so that the state does not present itself as a coercive force. In this case, the courts are trusted mediators who remain neutral on questions relating to the law and the interpretation of Charter challenges. Canada emphasizes equality and diversity for its nation, in which democracy is considered a valuable and important part of the national system. political culture. Democracy generally consists of elements such as popular sovereignty, political equality, and political freedom (Cochrane et al. 2017). A definition of democracy given by Robert A. Dahl suggests that democracy aims to prevent cruel and vicious rule by rulers, provides citizens with basic rights and freedoms, discourages war, and encourages prosperity (Ringen, 2008). The main scope of democracy in Canada, apart from being commonly considered an ideologypolicy which includes fairness and equality, manifests itself in the government's dependence on the confident support of the Legislative Assembly (Huber, 1996) in order to continue its governance of the country. State. Judges like Parliament have a strong democratic value which lies in votes of confidence between them, but in many cases the manner in which they are chosen, the overprojection of judicial activism and the lack of equality between citizens in judicial cases influence the fight against corruption. -democracy. How Supreme Court justices are chosen influences anti-democracy. The nine judges who sit on the Supreme Court are not chosen by the Canadian public since they are appointed without any publication or public hearing, by the Prime Minister (Roach, 2016). Ultimately, Canadians have no jurisdiction to choose their fellow citizens who will make decisions that will impact all of Canada (Roach, 2016). The courts are not democratic in their selection, organization or their process (Martin, 2003). Once appointed to the Supreme Court, a judge can remain in office until the age of seventy-five (Martin, 2003). Their decisions are solely independent of coercion or anyone's discretion (Martin, 2003). Judicial activism is a crucial element of the courts’ undemocratic values. Judges are ordinary human beings who possess emotions and may be prone to errors (Wistrich et al., 2015). People tend to respond more positively toward others whom they like or feel sympathy toward, as opposed to those toward whom they dislike or feel disgust (Wistrich et al., 2015). . It can be affirmed that feelings towards litigants or certain situations can influence a judge's decision (Wistrich et al., 2015). Judicial activism in Canada has been the subject of numerous complaints from many people. Whether it is the accusation that courts have invented laws to protect the rights of corporations or other powerful interest groups, courts have shown that they apply their own views in their decisions (Roach, 2001). Judges can be biased and prioritize the rights of individuals and groups over the public good (Roach, 2016). Judicial activism is overall undemocratic because it is a factor within the courts that does not benefit everyone. The charter was put in place to serve as a guideline for judges' interpretation, but judges tend to make the law in their own image, in which their political views and personal values ​​influence them (Roach, 2016). Judicial activism undermines the value of the Charter in the justice system, in which judges refer to underlying values ​​such as human dignity, which do not appear in the Charter on which they are supposed to base their decisions ( Savoie, 2015). This action allows courts to go beyond the scope of the Charter in their work, thereby threatening the proper institutional division of labor between legislatures and courts (Savoie, 2015). Judicial activism also contributes to the lack of democracy in the courts because it is representative of their personal perspectives. The judiciary has produced anti-democracy through interest groups. Interest group politics is undemocratic because it erodes citizenship in which people categorize themselves according to their race or gender, or any other criterion that removes them from being classified as ordinary citizens and these groups use the courts as a means of circumvent democratic processes (Martin, 2015). Interest groups preferpursue their political agenda in the courts rather than in front of politicians (Savoie, 2015), suggesting a lack of trust in the political system. These groups promote a goal and, in many ways, cause the exclusion of others in doing so (Martin, 2003). The Supreme Court presents itself as a neutral entity that reinforces the Charter, but judges tend to make decisions in favor of these interest groups in order to maintain their confidence in the judiciary (Martin, 2003). By favoring groups, the Court is faced with the problem of not imposing democratic values, because there is an absence of equality. Elected governments, although they hold more power than the justice system, do not retain sufficient authority over public policy. The creation of laws is inherent in the executive and legislative branches of government, but after the adoption of the Charter, judges emerged as the primary policy makers. The long power granted to the judiciary to finalize crucial decisions has allowed it to make a major contribution to the Canadian government. Judges are overstepping their bounds and steps must be taken to bring them back so they can be more accountable to the Canadian public (Russell and Howe, 2001). Parliament no longer seems to enjoy the respect of Canadians, unlike several decades ago, when politicians and political parties influenced public policies and were all necessary (Savoie, 2015). Judges are at the forefront of legislation, while the government takes responsibility for decisions imposed by the courts. The Chief Justice of Canada has made it clear that law and justice are based on rational principles and not on laws approved by Parliament (Savoie, 2015), further suggesting that government officials are not necessary to accomplish these tasks. Elected officials also demonstrate a lack of authority over public policy, as many controversial Supreme Court cases have been finalized without a second hearing. In the event that the judiciary oversteps its bounds and does not act within the requirements of the Charter, there is section 33: the notwithstanding clause. This law can be imposed on Supreme Court decisions regarding Charter law, but it has barely been used, undermining its effectiveness and usefulness (Russell and Howe, 2001). Section 33 aims to strengthen democracy within the justice system and the Charter, but elected officials tend to refrain from using it in order to avoid conflict (Russell and Howe, 2001). If the judiciary were completely democratic, the current provisions of Article 33 would be completely abolished, but as unelected judges make crucial decisions, there must be some form of checks and balances to maintain democratic principles within the judiciary. justice system (Russell and Howe). , 2001,). Yet, this ideology is contradictory in that governments exercise little or no checks and balances on the judiciary to avoid upsetting the nation and its fundamental rights (Russell and Howe, 2001). Therefore, elected governments have the power to hold authority over public policy, but refrain from exercising this authority because they leave it in the hands of judges in whom society has already built its trust. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a custom article now from our expert writers.Get a custom essayConclusionOverall, judges have excessive power because of their jurisdiction over extreme issues, their institutional independence, and their, 93(4), 855-923.