Supreme Court balanced, impartial

Re New system to elect our top judges still elitist Opinion, Nov. 14.

In his opinion piece on the appointment process for Supreme Court justices, Grant Huscroft complains that the present process is “secretive, elitist, and profoundly undemocratic.”

It’s difficult to grasp the reason for his complaint that it is undemocratic. Parliament is an institution that, through elections, gives political power to the majority within the country; as it should in a democracy. The Constitution, on the other hand — and especially the Charter of Rights — is there to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Huscroft seems to suggest that the process in the United States is open and democratic. Indeed, what we see there is a long-term trend to stack the Supreme Court with people who agree with the political ideals of the elected majority in Congress and the White House. Many of us consider that a dangerous and terrifying trend that will undermine democracy in the end. And what’s wrong with elitism? Given their responsibility — and especially their responsibility to remain as balanced and impartial as possible — I would have thought we would want the very best people we can find in the job. Even secrecy doesn’t seem that suspect when you watch a clever man like newly appointed Chief Justice John Roberts bob and weave when he was asked questions meant to ferret out how he would decide key questions. Given that his viewpoint dovetails so neatly with the current hegemonic opinion in the U.S., all the openness in the world was not going to guarantee real scrutiny. Whatever the procedural complaints, we in Canada have a remarkably balanced and temperate Supreme Court. What’s wrong with good results? Pat Kerans, Ottawa