I’ve been thinking about the Supreme Court a lot lately. Well, and also since I was a kid.
I was, in particular, an early fan of Chief Justice McLachlin, and Justice Wilson. They saw through legal and societal fictions, and led through consensus and in dissent. I admired them. In Street Legal, which I started watching at age 9, I saw my path.
My first paid publications were about the Supreme Court. My recollection is that as part of that experience I got to attend a legal conference for free and hear Chief Justice McLachlin speak! There could be no paid job more exciting for a 20-year-old law nerd. Neither article was within my subject-matter interest, though, and I truly hope both got fact-checked by actual lawyers prior to publication.
My continuing interest in the Court enabled me to go to law school. I’m convinced the reason I got a full scholarship is because I’d happened to read a case that a member of the panel of interviewers wanted to talk about. Meaning: I read the entire case, not just the headnote or news coverage. I thought the relevant panel member, who was of some prestige in the legal community, was overstating what the Court had said in that particular case, and I gave the panel my take. I’m pretty sure that’s the moment that got me the funding for my degree. Because I read Supreme Court cases for fun.
My focus continued throughout law school, and I earned two interviews for a Supreme Court clerkship. I was not surprised to not get an offer from either of them. A few years later, with additional credentials, I earned seven more interviews. Two of the Justices said to my face they would be choosing me, but then they didn’t. I don’t know why. I’ve wondered since then if I hold the record for most Supreme Court clerkship interviews without an offer.
“To be near the Supreme Court” was a strong reason for moving a thousand kilometres to Ottawa, where I had no friends and no job. Eventually I found work that eventually permitted me to be sitting at the table as Parliamentarians asked questions of Supreme Court nominees! This was unspeakably exciting. (To be clear, I was not permitted to ask questions myself.)
Now, I just have a vague goal of writing something that will get translated by the Court. I’m not sure what the path to that is. Maybe this is a start.
Part of the reason I’m thinking about the Court now is because I think it has some stressful years ahead, as governments fail more and more citizens and Charter rights become the only option (other than revolution).
I think about the options the Court has particularly in the area of criminal and correctional law, and in particular with respect to the growing numbers of Indigenous, impoverished, unhoused, and mentally ill accused. I wonder how the Court is going to respond to the rights of students to demonstrate against genocide on university campuses, without being mistreated by armed police. And what will they say about environmental and other public health laws that are duly enacted but all but doom future generations to wildfires and drought and infection?
Is the unjust deference of NAPE our future, or the strong leadership of Bedford? I’m obviously hoping the latter.
Be a bulwark.
Me and the Supreme Court
I’ve been thinking about the Supreme Court a lot lately. Well, and also since I was a kid.
I was, in particular, an early fan of Chief Justice McLachlin, and Justice Wilson. They saw through legal and societal fictions, and led through consensus and in dissent. I admired them. In Street Legal, which I started watching at age 9, I saw my path.
My first paid publications were about the Supreme Court. My recollection is that as part of that experience I got to attend a legal conference for free and hear Chief Justice McLachlin speak! There could be no paid job more exciting for a 20-year-old law nerd. Neither article was within my subject-matter interest, though, and I truly hope both got fact-checked by actual lawyers prior to publication.
My continuing interest in the Court enabled me to go to law school. I’m convinced the reason I got a full scholarship is because I’d happened to read a case that a member of the panel of interviewers wanted to talk about. Meaning: I read the entire case, not just the headnote or news coverage. I thought the relevant panel member, who was of some prestige in the legal community, was overstating what the Court had said in that particular case, and I gave the panel my take. I’m pretty sure that’s the moment that got me the funding for my degree. Because I read Supreme Court cases for fun.
My focus continued throughout law school, and I earned two interviews for a Supreme Court clerkship. I was not surprised to not get an offer from either of them. A few years later, with additional credentials, I earned seven more interviews. Two of the Justices said to my face they would be choosing me, but then they didn’t. I don’t know why. I’ve wondered since then if I hold the record for most Supreme Court clerkship interviews without an offer.
“To be near the Supreme Court” was a strong reason for moving a thousand kilometres to Ottawa, where I had no friends and no job. Eventually I found work that eventually permitted me to be sitting at the table as Parliamentarians asked questions of Supreme Court nominees! This was unspeakably exciting. (To be clear, I was not permitted to ask questions myself.)
Now, I just have a vague goal of writing something that will get translated by the Court. I’m not sure what the path to that is. Maybe this is a start.
Part of the reason I’m thinking about the Court now is because I think it has some stressful years ahead, as governments fail more and more citizens and Charter rights become the only option (other than revolution).
I think about the options the Court has particularly in the area of criminal and correctional law, and in particular with respect to the growing numbers of Indigenous, impoverished, unhoused, and mentally ill accused. I wonder how the Court is going to respond to the rights of students to demonstrate against genocide on university campuses, without being mistreated by armed police. And what will they say about environmental and other public health laws that are duly enacted but all but doom future generations to wildfires and drought and infection?
Is the unjust deference of NAPE our future, or the strong leadership of Bedford? I’m obviously hoping the latter.
Be a bulwark.