IndexIntroductionJudges have excessive powerConclusionReferencesIntroductionThe Supreme Court of Canada, seen as the guardian of the constitution, has had the advantage of making broad judicial decisions since the entrenchment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 (Kelly, 2004). Pre-Charter courts had authority, but specifically over matters relating to the division of power (Kelly, 2004). The introduction of the Charter has been identified as the most radical break ever made to 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 to monitor the consistency of legislation with rights, as well as formulate and amend laws (Hiebert, 2010). The Charter has significantly strengthened the role of the judiciary in Canada, but has also contributed to an increase in conflict. The conflict can be analyzed through the excess power of judges in Canada and the undemocratic judiciary perpetuated by the Supreme Court. Elected governments that hold sovereignty over the nation do not maintain sufficient authority over public policies where judges have excess power, judicial independence and act undemocratically regardless of the nation's opinions, because checks and balances are unlikely to be imposed to ensure democracy principles are followed in Canada. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay This essay will be divided into two parts: the first section will discuss the excess power held by the judiciary and the second section will discuss the anti-democratic values ​​perpetuated by the judiciary. Both sections will also show an argument in relation to why elected governments do not hold sufficient authority over public authority. Judges have too much power Canadian judges are individuals who understand the legal principles within the nation (Dyzenhaus, 2010). They are essentially arbiters in constitutional affairs (Bazowski, 2009). Judges issue legal authority in which they are authorized to make decisions regarding the law, and in doing so interpret the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to conclude various cases. Judges have too much power, meaning they have the final say in judicial procedures and have the jurisdiction to deal with the most serious cases in the country. When the Charter was being developed, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau often spoke of rights and freedoms as if they were fragile, unproblematic contents that would not be disturbed by the new powers given to Canadian judges (Russell and Howe, 2001). Before the Charter, the only constitutional disputes that arose concerned the division of powers (Bazowski, 2009). Judges were ultimately given the authority to resolve and regulate disputes over which the government had the power to regulate activities (Bazowski, 2009). This break essentially gave the judges the ability to gain power, since regulating the highest level of authorities in the nation was a very distinct and important responsibility. This form of regulation was considered a constitutional judgment (Bazowski, 2009) and judges were given the final say on major policy issues. In the Supreme Court of Canada, even before the entrenchment of the Bill of Rights, judges were developing a more activist 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 for givingto the court complete control over the cases it would hear and thus allow the courts to determine which areas of the law it would influence through its rulings (Bazowski, 2009), therefore allowing the courts to determine importance of issues pertaining to the law and creating precedent for cases futures. The Charter further strengthened the power of the courts by allowing them to evaluate the constitutionality of government actions and to strike down laws deemed unconstitutional, because the Charter emphasized state conduct (Bazowski, 2009). In addition to managing divisional power disputes, the Charter allowed courts to develop greater responsibilities that were amplified by the Charter (Hiebert, 1999). Courts have been able to make judgments on a wide range of political and social issues, from major cases such as the testing of cruise missiles in Canadian airspace to the action of euthanasia (Hiebert, 1999). Analyzing both the Charter and judicial decisions there are many cases where the courts appear to have great power. By addressing the most heinous and serious crimes, the Supreme Court of Canada has been able to finalize decisions regarding the outcome of specific cases. In this way, judges were able to establish a precedent that still has value in judicial proceedings today. Judicial independence contributes to the excess power that judges have. Judicial independence holds that judges within the courts should not suffer interference from the government, regardless of whether it is their decisions, financial security, and security of tenure that ensure their continued tenure (Gelinas and Brosseau, 2015 ). Courts must not be influenced by political structures in any way that could influence their decisions. This system is essentially a private entity that cannot be coerced by government officials. 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 jurisdiction to create and change laws, but when it comes to applying laws and interpreting them in accordance with the Charter, they tend to abstain, which is why judges retain so much power within the system. In essence, the government should avoid meddling with the law, to avoid conflicts with interest groups, for example (Hiebert, 2010). It is to the government's advantage to stay out of initial legal proceedings so that the state does not pose as a coercive force. The courts in this case are trusted mediators who remain neutral with respect to questions relating to the law and the interpretation of challenges to the Charter. Canada emphasizes equality and diversity for its nation, where democracy is upheld as a valuable and important part of the nation. political culture. Democracy usually consists of elements such as popular sovereignty, political equality, and political freedom (Cochrane et al. 2017). A definition of democracy by Robert A. Dahl suggests that democracy aims to prevent cruel and vicious governance by leaders, provides citizens with fundamental rights and freedoms, discourages war, and encourages prosperity (Ringen, 2008). The primary purpose of democracy in Canada, aside from being commonly regarded as a political ideology that includes fairness and equality, is seen through the government's dependence on the confident support of parliament (Huber, 1996) to proceed with its governance on the territory. state. Judges, like parliament, are characterized by a strong democratic value represented by mutual votes of confidence, but in many cases the way in which they arechosen ones, the excessive projection of judicial activism and the lack of equality among citizens in judicial cases influence anti-democracy. The way Supreme Court justices are chosen influences anti-democracy. The nine justices who serve on the Supreme Court are not chosen by the Canadian public as they are appointed without any publication or public hearing by the Prime Minister (Roach, 2016). Ultimately, Canadians have no jurisdiction in choosing their fellow citizens who will make decisions that impact all of Canada (Roach, 2016). Courts are not democratic in their selection, organization, or process (Martin, 2003). Once appointed to the Supreme Court, a judge can remain in office until he reaches the age of seventy-five (Martin, 2003). Their decisions are solely independent of anyone's coercion or discretion (Martin, 2003). Judicial activism is a crucial part of the antidemocratic values ​​in the courts. Judges are normal human beings who possess emotions and may be prone to making errors (Wistrich et al., 2015). People have a tendency to react more positively towards others they like or feel liking towards than others they dislike or feel disgusted towards (Wistrich et al., 2015). It can be argued that feelings towards litigants or about certain situations can influence a judge's decision (Wistrich et al., 2015). Judicial activism in Canada has been widely lamented by many people. Whether accusing courts of making up laws to protect the rights of businesses or other powerful interest groups, courts have been shown to apply their own opinions in their decisions (Roach, 2001). Judges may be biased and prioritize the rights of individuals and groups over the public good (Roach, 2016). Judicial activism is overall undemocratic as it is a factor within the courts that does not take into account the benefit of all. The Charter was established to serve as an interpretive guideline for judges, but judges tend to make the law in their own image, where their political views and personal values ​​influence them (Roach, 2016). Judicial activism undermines the value of the Charter in the justice system, where judges refer to fundamental values ​​such as human dignity, which do not appear in the Charter on which they should base their decisions (Savoie, 2015). This action allows courts to go beyond the scope of the Charter in their work, putting at risk the proper institutional division of labor between legislatures and courts (Savoie, 2015). Judicial activism further contributes to the lack of democracy in the courts as 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 classify themselves by race or sex, or any other criterion that distances them from being classified as regular citizens, and these groups use the courts as a means to circumvent democratic processes (Martin, 2015). Interest groups prefer to pursue their political agenda through the courts rather than politicians (Savoie, 2015), suggesting that there is a lack of trust in the political system. These groups advocate for a goal and in many ways cause the exclusion of others in the process of pursuing it (Martin, 2003). The Supreme Court positions itself as a neutral entity that enforces the Charter, but judges tend to make decisions in favor of these interest groups to maintain their trust in the judiciary (Martin, 2003). Favoring groups,the Court faces the problem of not imposing democratic values, since equality is lacking. Elected governments, while holding more power than the judicial system, do not maintain sufficient authority over public policies. The creation of legislation is inherent to the executive and legislative branches of government, but since the passage of the Charter, judges have proven to be the primary policy makers. The judiciary's longstanding power to finalize crucial decisions has allowed them to make important contributions to the Canadian government. Judges are overstepping their limits and steps are needed to bring them back so they can be more accountable to the Canadian public (Russell and Howe, 2001). It is believed that Parliament no longer enjoys the respect of Canadians, unlike several decades ago, as politicians and political parties influenced public policies and were all needed on an individual level (Savoie, 2015), but now judges are at the forefront in legislation, while the government takes responsibility for decisions imposed by the courts. Canada's chief justice has made it clear that law and justice are based on rational principles and not on laws passed by Parliament (Savoie, 2015), further suggesting that government officials are not necessary to carry out these tasks. Elected officials also display a lack of authority over public policy as many controversial Supreme Court cases have been concluded without a second questioning. In the event that the judiciary oversteps its boundaries and does not act within the requirements of the Charter, the entrenchment of Section 33 occurs: the notwithstanding clause. This act can be imposed on Supreme Court decisions regarding a law rooted in the Charter, but has barely been used, which undermines its effectiveness and usefulness (Russell and Howe, 2001). Section 33 serves to strengthen democracy within the justice system and the Charter, but elected officials tend to refrain from using it to prevent conflicts from arising (Russell and Howe, 2001). If the judiciary were fully democratic, the current entrenchment of section 33 would be completely abolished, but as unelected judges make crucial decisions, there needs to be some form of check and balance to maintain democratic principles within the justice system (Russell and Howe, 2001,). However, this ideology is contradictory as 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 jurisdiction to possess authority over public policies, but they refrain from exercising that authority because they leave it in the hands of judges in whom society has already built trust. Please note: this is just an example. Make an article habit now from our expert writers. Get a Custom EssayConclusion Overall, judges have excess power due to their jurisdiction over extreme matters, their institutional independence, and their primary role in ensuring that the Charter is maintained at its highest level of importance. The judiciary is undemocratic because of judges appointed and serving long terms, the expression of judicial activism, and the influence the court has in the growth of interest groups. The Supreme Court has proven to be an effective and strong institution but has also proven to dominate much of Canadian society. In many cases, driven primarily by their powerful position, self-interest, and tendency to please interest groups, Supreme Court justices have demonstrated that they dominate, 93(4), 855-923.