The Supreme Court of Canada judges have been described as tin-pot dictators who want to rewrite Canadian laws to align them with their own biased opinions.

“Sexual orientation” is a fairly recent homosexual buzzword thought up by the homosexual public relations department and makes no more sense than “heterosexual orientation” would. Yet the judicial activist Supreme Court of Canada overruled Parliament and the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms and stuck in “sexual orientation,” which elevated sodomy to a constitutional right. This made it possible for further suits against religious organizations who previously had a right to their religious convictions.

If the Supreme Court judges want to make laws, why don’t they run for office? The judicial activist judges wear two hats now – they interpret laws and they make laws. I say: get out of the courtroom if you want to make laws. Face public scrutiny. The Liberal party would probably find safe seats for them.

The Toronto Star complained about Stephen Harper accusing the Liberals of stacking courts with pro-gay judges to foist same-sex marriage on Canada. Well, didn’t they? Being a big “L” Liberal or a little “L” liberal sure didn’t hurt. They’ve twisted the Supreme Court of Canada into being another wing of the Liberal party. Hats off to Stephen Harper for blowing the whistle.

Why shouldn’t the Supreme Court of Canada would-be’s stand “naked” before a committee of members of Parliament (representing various political parties) and answer hard questions as to their suitability for the job? It would show them who got them their jobs. It’s done in the workplace all the time. It’s done to weed out the less-desirable candidates. That seems like a good idea.

Here’s how the line of questioning might go if I was on a parliamentary committee reviewing prospective Supreme Court candidates.

“Sir, I would like to ask your opinion on a number of issues that you will surely face during your stay on the Supreme Court. Please, sir, don’t stall, murmur, fudge, obfuscate, or say that you don’t have any opinion. Did you understand what I said? A little louder if you don’t mind. Thank you. Now I have before me a news report dated Feb. 11, 2004 that the South Dakota house has passes a bill criminalizing abortions. The vote in favour of House Bill 1191 was 54 to 14. I’m going to ask you … Oh wait. Get him some water! He’s fainted …

“Okay, I see, sir, you’ve recovered. Oh, it was just a fainting spell. A little background may be required here. Representative Matt McCaulley, the chief sponsor of the bill, called abortion an important moral issue that transcends party lines. And I quote him: ‘Protecting unborn human life is something the vast majority of South Dakota residents support, and Democrats and Republicans joined together and passed a bill that will protect unborn life in our state.’

“Sir, you say you want to talk this over with your lawyer, Alan Borovoy, before you make any comment. I’m sorry, sir, but that will not be allowed. I want to know what you think, not Mr. Borovoy. Now the preamble for this bill says that based on the best scientific and medical evidence, life begins at fertilization and that South Dakota’s bill of rights applies equally to born and unborn human beings.

“Sir, I’ve noticed that your eyes have become glazed. Are you feeling well? He’s fainted again. Get him some water and some smelling salts. Yes, thank you. He’s coming around.

“This legislation notes that abortions pose risks to the health and life of pregnant women, including the risk of suicide, depression and other post traumatic disorders. Sir, are you aware of these conditions? … No? You’ve never read about them in the Toronto Star?

“The bill goes on to say that physicians must make every effort to preserve the life of both mother and her unborn child, but the physicians would not be charged in cases where medical treatment given to a pregnant woman resulted in the accidental or unintentional death of the unborn baby.

“Now, sir, I want to know that if this bill, or one like it, appeared before you sitting on the Supreme Court of Canada – what would be your position?”

Bump-bump-bump-bump-bump.

“Well I know that Canada is a bilingual country, but I don’t recognize that as either one of the languages. Maybe you would like to clarify your thoughts for the panel?”

Bump-bump-bump-bump-bump.

“Thank you, sir. Next candidate?”