Since the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, there has been much discussion about
the proper role of judges and courts in our democratic system.
It shows a deeply worrying and fundamental lack of understanding of
the proper role of a judge.»
There is still debate about the «
proper role of the judge as impartial arbitrator».
Not exact matches
Judge Graham expresses in his decision thoughts that by now should be quite familiar to our readers: «The Justices
of the Supreme Court disagree among themselves on the
proper role of religion in public life and the extent
of the Court's authority to decide these issues under the Establishment Clause.
The apostle Paul makes the very same appeal to «natural» and «unnatural,» in the context
of gender
roles, when he argues that women should wear head coverings: «
Judge for yourself,» he writes, «Is it
proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
In such a forum, balancing can play a key
role and they argue that the
proper method for assessing the new counter-terrorism laws, from a human rights perspective, is to adopt a «balancing approach» according to which the importance
of the relevant human right is weighed against the importance
of the societal or community interest in deciding whether to take legislative action (or, from the position
of a
judge, in deciding whether a certain law is valid).
«With
proper consideration and communication, targets for the number
of minority
judges can play an important
role in addressing under - representation.
He went on to proclaim that adherence to the trial record was not a ««fetish»» but rather a central foundation for «the
proper role of an appellate court,» and that extrarecord factual research by appellate
judges «will cause problems in our judicial system more serious than those it is trying to solve in this case.»
It is a «must» read if you are interested in thinking about the
proper role of trial
judges who must sentence people.