TORONTO – I marvel daily at the constant political references to America the “Great” in the discussions and debates that are about Canada. The Americans are always keen to promote themselves as the true heirs to the legacy of [late] Republican Rome, whose true grandeur was best seen in the creation of a Pax Romana whose stability over two centuries, and more, spawned a culture of rule of law, commercial growth, civil engineering as well as creativity in thought and the arts.
Donald Trump is in the process of promoting his brand of pax americana based on that concept, this in the twenty first century. In today’s parlance, he calls it as he sees it, and our choices to submit to his will, or not, are diminishing by the day.
I do not envy those in elected office or entrusted by them to defend and promote the infrastructure that keeps us together. It must be though following the bouncing ball. There does not seem to be a rhyme or reason to the President’s prompts, responses and reactions in any discussion: not on military expenditures, not on trading patterns, not on international perceptions regarding human rights, world governance and mobility of people and “goods”.
If people had gotten accustomed to the euphemistically titled culture wars, Trump has shattered any sense of “legitimacy” proponents of aggressive change might have yearned to establish by assuming the “high ground” – support by and in the Courts (its Justices) – are in for a surprise. In Canada as well.
The battle has been taken out of the political realm and placed in the hands of various levels of Courts whose competence and jurisdiction is tested almost daily, or so it seems. Lawfare is the order of the day – in the USA as it is in Canada. Just imagine that a Court entertained a legal argument objecting to the diminution of bike lanes (and the rights of cyclists to use them) on the basis of Constitutional rights.
Trump seems to have scant regard for previously “negotiated” accords once he tires of the advantage they accrue to others. He can and does invoke change “on a whim”. On Friday, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem called that judge an ‘idiot’ after her ruling on what she considered to be an illegal and improper detention during a sweep of alleged illegal immigrants.
Irrespective of one’s position on the issues that lead to the police action and the consequent outcomes, the Courts are there to safeguard constitutional matters and the legislation that may flow from them. There are appeal processes in the event of a disagreement. Calling the judge an idiot because her decision may not coincide with the Boss’ view should never be the issue in a society that really believes in the rule of law.
That happens here as well. Referencing an American incident may take serious roots in our Judicial system. A recent summary of the appointment process for Federal Court Justices suggested that at least 90% of appointees would have received the “blessing” of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Should a Minister attribute partisan political motive in decisions?
In the pics below, from left: U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of the United States District Court for the Central District of California
