michael000 said:
No clue about the canadian supreme court but if you'd like basic comparitive info the US SC is the third branch of our govt. To put it in it's simplist form in the US its a checks and balances type of deal and the SC doesn't actually have any overturning power all the justices can do is interpret laws as they see it (a very powerful position indeed) however should they overturn a state law or other act as unconstitutional then they in turn can be checked by either a congressional or presidential action. This is done by of course by constitutional amendments which both have the power to try to get passed, thereby overturning what the SC had ruled on. That's a very very basic overview of it of course but that gives you the fundamentals, how it pertains to the CSC i don't know but maybe it helps.
All kinds of good information on an entirely unrelated issue; Canada's Federal System means an entirely different Judicial Branch. The system of checks and balances does not exist in Canada.
For all intensive purpose, the Judiciary encompasses the various levels of courts throughout the country. It IS one of three branches of the executive.
I have a feeling, however, that it might be referring to something else. Because, really, the Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the judicial branch, so logically would be considered the third branch of Gov't. I'd ask for some explanation on what exactly they mean by branches...officially, there is the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch.
Really, it's a body that cannot actually make legislation, nor can it really stop that legislation from being put into law. Where the Supreme Court gains its power is in the interpretation of laws, as well as in special situations giving advisory opinions.
An example of an advisory opinion is that of Paul Martin and Same Sex Marriage. He went to the Supreme Court with a variety of questions, regarding the constitutionality of Same Sex Marriage. In the end, they avoided the tough questions but answered those that they felt they should. This is purely interpretive; there is no binding decisions being made.
The real reason that the Supreme Court is seen as such an important body is that of the importance of a constitution and how these moral issues are usually the ones that grip a nation, even when they are really quite unimportant and less relevant than the "boring" issues of the budget and other such buzzkills. Over the past 20 or more tears since the Constitution has been in place, there has been a great deal of social change that has dealt with that constitution, and that the Supreme Court would thus have a role in. Whether it be abortion, same-sex marriage, or human rights in general (Jotaro would surely note the large amount of French Language Laws taken before the Supreme Court).
Personally, I don't think that has anything to do with activism or the Court overstepping its bounds. I think it's simply a matter of progression; the Court system is seenn by many as being the legitimate way of changing something that you feel is discriminatory. Situations like that of Terri Schiavo, which is an international headline, shows the rise of court challeges in general. There is a public perception that the courts are how you do these things. This wasn't always the case, however, and the newfound media efficiency in the internet has increased the amount of press these issues receieve.
In the end, the Supreme Court deals with the Consitution; It interprets the document, it makes sure the government is not ignoring it, and it takes cases from people who feel that they have been wronged by their government in regards to it. If the Supreme Court has risen in public standing, doesn't this also mean that the constitution has become more important? The two are interconnected.
I'm not sure the Supreme Court can overturn Government decisions...in fact, I know they can't. What they can do is judge a law unconstitutional after the fact. They have no part in the law-making process, only in its interpretation based on that constitution. Check for correlations between the constitution and the court, and try to figure out some catalyst issues of the past few years that the Supreme Court has ruled on and has risen their profile and created precedent for the enforcement of the constitution.
Hope that helps a bit...I'd still like to know why it says "often"...I thought it just was.
