[AG] Judicial Ruling: Judicial Impeachments

Day 1,253, 17:06 • Published in Canada Canada • by Kilgore Trout 89


At the end of March, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that in accordance with the new eCanadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (our new Constitution) Supreme Court Justices “are tenured for life” however specified that “A member may be removed by reason of illness, inactivity or misconduct”. Initially this decision caused a reaction from Congress and questions arose regarding how a Justice may be removed. In response, Congress started a debate that would lead a Constitutional amendment imposing limits on Judicial terms.



On April 9th, the Court took another step towards Judicial reform and began a discussion on how and when a Judge could be removed. Several days ago, a final decision was reached by the courts. A full explanation of the decision can be found beginning with this post on the eCan forums however, in the interest of simplicity, I will provide a much shorter explanation for the public. The primary point of significance is that the courts have decided that because Congress appoints Justices, Congress also has the ability to impeach a Court Justice at any time after a debate and a vote. The court has requested that before such a debate begins that Congress notify the Chief Justice so the Supreme Court has the opportunity to remove the individual in question without Congressional intervention. Furthermore, in the event that a non-Congressional member of the public would like to have a Justice removed, they are free to contact the Attorney General or Chief Justice to begin the process.



Citizens should note that no solid requirements have been put in place to determine whether a Justice is inactive or has committed an act of misconduct. Instead, Justices are to be held to a duty of honesty and good faith. This is to say that any behavior, even if it is not explicitly written down that threatens the integrity of the Court qualify as a grounds for investigation. This is of course an over simplification of the decision and I encourage any interested citizens to read the full explanation. Over all, the decision has been a popular one. No Justice has of yet spoken against it and congress has not only agreed to the terms but have in fact withdrawn the Constitutional amendment that would impose limits.



As Attorney General, I would like to invite any citizen who believes a Supreme Court Justice should be recused from their position to contact me in writing with their explanation.