The Politics of Judges Right Hook JJ McCullough, OP Columnist Mere days after the announcement, conservatives have already started to rally around Bush’s latest pick for the US Supreme Court. But not in a way the President would like. Many conservatives—myself included—felt some- what of a slap in the face last week when Bush announced that Harriet Miers, the President’s current White House legal counsel, was his choice to succeed the recently retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Miers has never been a judge, an elected politician, or any other sort of political or legal activist of note. Her career as a lawyer, though lengthy and at least somewhat impressive, is hardly the sort of resume one expects of a prospective jurist applying to sit on the highest court of the most powerful nation in the world. With the American high court now playing an increasingly activist role in the political process, and routinely enacting broad, sweeping policy changes that affect the entire country, the prospect of a future Bush appointee had been a huge debating point for the presi- dent’s critics and supporters alike. Republicans in partic- ular had long been pressuring for Bush to live up to his campaign promise and appoint a strict constitutionalist judge in the mold of the court’s current conservatives, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. He or she didn’t have to be a fire-breathing ultra-rightist, but the legions of social conservatives, economic liberals, and libertari- ans who twice supported the President’s election cam- paigns requested a judge who clearly shared at least some of their views. : Instead, Bush’s backers have been given a nominee with absolutely no judicial track record. Since she has never been a judge, she has never issued a ruling on any matter—let alone controversial or contemporarily rele- vant ones. Lacking any firm credentials, conservatives are now being asked to judge Miers based solely on the President’s word. With her appointment coming at such a crucial time for the court’s future, and with so many eminently more qualified conservative (and female) judges sitting idly in the dugout, Republicans in the Senate may simply decide the risks associated with Miers are too great, and torpedo her confirmation. This ongoing controversy should have particular rel- evance to Canada. In the United States, public debate and discussion always play a vital role in the Supreme Court nomination process. From blogs to magazine columns to Saturday Morning political talk shows, all across America, pundits, partisans, and pressure groups have been eagerly weighing in on the Miers pick. Their opinions will influence their elected politicians, and their elected politicians will vote accordingly. It’s called democracy. Back in this county, however, the various left-wing chattering classes love to tut-tut the American system of judicial appointments, and openly mock the fact that US politicians get to question and vote on the President’s high court nominees. Aghast at such audacity, they argue that such a process amounts to the “political tainting” of the judicial branch. Supposedly our sys- tem—where judges are appointed unilaterally by the Prime Minister, with no parliamentary debate, discus- sion, or oversight—creates a far more neutral judicial branch. Because, you know, who better to be the safeguard of partisan neutrality than the leader of a political party. Here’s a surprising news flash—no one is non-parti- san. Becoming a judge is not like becoming a priest or a king. They are not raised from birth for the job, nor are they trained in some bubble-world of complete social isolation. A judge is essentially just a promoted lawyer, and a lawyer is simply someone who graduated law school—and how many students do you know that are politically neutral? Political views do not magically van- ish from your brain the second you don a black robe. To be sure, an important part of a judge’s job is his ability to view cases with an open mind and a sense of impartiality, but since so much of constitutional law is extremely subjective, this approach only goes so far. In any emotionally charged, polarizing case, a justice’s judgment will inevitably be influenced by his or her own moral values and political ideologies, more than most would ever care to admit. Hoping for, or even believing in, a Supreme Court that is completely and utterly politically and ideologically neutral is a fantasy. Such an obviously far-out concept is only considered plausible in a nation such as ours where the Supreme Court is a hidden, remote institution of which the average person knows nothing. Precisely because the court is so invisible and unknown it’s easy for the public to accept at face value any propaganda line about how wonderfully neutral and non-partisan the body is. For Canada’s judicial activists, the public’s ignorance is their bliss. President Bush has made a bad choice in selecting Harriet Miers, and at this point I think the Senate would be wise to reject her. Someday, it would be nice if I could write a sentence like that about a Canadian judge. School's Out for Fall Legislating teachers to work is just plain dumb Left Overs lain Reeve, OP Columnist This week the British Columbia Teacher’s Federation voted 90.5 percent in favour of defying the BC govern- ment’s Bill 12, which legislated them back to work to avert the proposed strike. They will defy the govern- ment by striking and closing primary and secondary schools in BC. This is a technically illegal action which has many risks attached to it, but the teachers are will- ing to accept the risks to protest the imposed back-to- work order and to protect what they believe is right. Several factors are at play here. The first thing critics of the strike may argue is that it is just another cash grab by teachers, trying to bleed the government dry. While it is true that wage increases are a large item on the list of complaints, the demands are reasonable and there are more important issues to be dealt with as well. The requested increase in wages by teachers is roughly equal to the increase in goods’ prices that has occurred since the last bargaining agreement finished. So in terms of real purchasing power, there is no increase being requested here other than a cost of living allowance—the teachers deserve to continue earning the same amount in real income. The more important issue for most teachers here, however, are the questions revolving around quality of service. With over a hundred schools closed across the province, and thousands of teachers laid off in the last four years, it is hard to argue that education is the prior- ity the Liberals have claimed it is for them. On top of that, class sizes have increased, money per student and per school has decreased, and teachers and administra- tors are feeling at the end of their rope in their attempts to provide quality education. On top of all these issues, we are facing a shortage of teachers in the coming years as a substantial percent- age of teachers are within five years of retirement. There is an entirely insufficient number of replacements on the way, largely due to an overall aging population. However, it is also because of decreased post-secondary enrolment—which has come as a result of a decreased government commitment to post-secondary education. The only way to ensure we have enough teachers is to either make a new commitment to post-secondary edu- cation, or to significantly increase wages to attract teachers from other provinces and outside the country. The reasoning behind stripping teachers of their legal right to pursue job action was that education is an essential service. This is the same reasoning the govern- ment has used against health care workers in the past. For once I’m going to have to go ahead and agree with the BC Liberals: education is an essential service. For that reason, the government should not be legislating teachers back to work, thus ensuring further disruption in the future; the government should be doing all they can to make them happy. Let’s admit it folks: as important as other jobs in society are, be it doctors, lawyers, trades people, or even politicians, none of them can happen without a stable education system. Without teachers we're all just dumb losers working at Wendy’s or living in our parent’s base- ments playing World of Warcraft. So smarten up BC. We need our teachers back.