Mighty Judgement Summary

In the book Mighty Judgement, Philip Slayton talks about the Supreme Court of Canada as a government institution which needs reform on the premises that Supreme Court of Canada is powerful, paternalistic, competent, undemocratic, and secretive. Slayton begins with the question of whether judges make or interpret the law and whether they should be doing only one of those things. Also, he describes the historical past of the Supreme Court, and how the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms affected the cases which reach the Supreme Court. Slayton also analyzed the Supreme Court of Canada and came up with possible overdue reforms based on his experience as a lawyer, academic, and a previous Supreme Court clerk.

Throughout his experience, interviews with Supreme Court judges and the questioning of different authors and political analysts Slayton reach conclusions about the Supreme Court of Canada. Slayton compared the United States Supreme Court to the Supreme Court of Canada as they are both government institutions but they are run differently. In the United States, judges are nominated by the President and selected by the Senate, unlike Canada where the Prime Minister has the full power to appoint judges. Based on this comparison and the fact that judges have the power to strike down and read in laws, Slaton …show more content…
However, he still praises the Supreme Court of Canada as the nine judges do their best to preform a good job, regardless of the flawed nature of the court. On the other hand, he further criticizes the legal path for a case to reach the Supreme Court of Canada, as the way up the Canadian legal system is expensive and suits people with the most money. Furthermore, he also suggests that the government has been using the Supreme Court as a legal advisor, since many political problems have been legal questions in front of the