Is Scalia correct that the courts aren't supposed to interpret constitutional law and throw out legislation that violates it, or is this just Scalia being Scalia?
In Canada, tossing out unconstitutional laws is a huge part of judicial role. The rights of gay people to marry was entirely determined by the courts. Three provincial courts from three different provinces decided denying gay people the right to marry was unconstitutional, the issue was brought to the Supreme Court of Canada not through a court battle but because that's what we do sometimes, and they decided the same. The legislation came after.
They also decided that the abortion laws were too onerous and tossed those laws out, too.
It's arrogant of me to assume other countries are the same, I know. I keep tripping over mines that demonstrate my ignorance of how other countries work.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2013-06-26 06:21 pm (UTC)In Canada, tossing out unconstitutional laws is a huge part of judicial role. The rights of gay people to marry was entirely determined by the courts. Three provincial courts from three different provinces decided denying gay people the right to marry was unconstitutional, the issue was brought to the Supreme Court of Canada not through a court battle but because that's what we do sometimes, and they decided the same. The legislation came after.
They also decided that the abortion laws were too onerous and tossed those laws out, too.
It's arrogant of me to assume other countries are the same, I know. I keep tripping over mines that demonstrate my ignorance of how other countries work.