The Most Dangerous Branch: How the Supreme Court of Canada Has Undermined Our Law and Our Democracy

Rating:
Summary: Terrific but chilling read
Review: I first became acquainted with Robert Ivan Martin by hearing him on talk shows. He came across as profoundly informed, knowledgeable and deeply concerned about the state of democracy in Canada. I couldn't wait to read his book and it certainly is an eye opener. For anyone seriously interested in how damaging the Court is to the democratic process, this book is a must read. I sincerely hope that a follow up book by the professor will someday be published.

Rating:
Summary: How Could This Happen?
Review: In The Most Dangerous Branch, Robert Martin delivers a scathing indictment of the Supreme Court of Canada. The book examines the ways in which judges have hijacked the legal system: they have turned the law into their own personal plaything; they have deliberately and unilaterally expanded thier own authority; and they have attempted to set the social agenda in Canada. Martin argues that, becuase they are not elected representatives of the people, they have no right to do any of these things.

This book is about abuse of power. Martin is primarily concerned with how decisions are reached by the Supreme Court. He argues that Supreme Court decisions are largely based on the whim of judges, rather than the law. He illustrates this point brilliantly with an exhaustive array of examples that are sometimes amusing and often alarming. In reading the book, I found myself asking, how could these things happen?

Supreme Court judges are meant to strive to be impartial, or, at least, to create the appearance of being impartial. Martin demonstrates how they done just the opposite by aligning themselves with identity groups and by publicizing, and even celebrating, their partisan views on political issues. Their handling of the Constitution and the Charter, Martin argues, is equally biased. They have appointed themselves as interpreters of both documents, often "reading in" laws and/or rights that do not exist.

Martin's book is expertly written and his arguments are well documented. His prose is clear and direct. At times, he is vitriolic and hyperbolic, which inevitably will be seen by some as a weakness. However, I think that Martin is at his best in these passages because his words betray in him a true passion for honesty, integrity, and the law.

Rating:
Summary: Get past the partisanship and enjoy the book
Review: Martin clearly comes from the old school mode of thought, in many instances a quick glance into the notes of the book weakens his arguments. The reader should be reminded that Martin is commenting on the way the court reaches its decisions and not necessarily the result.

The chapter dealing with the influence of feminism on the courts is particularly illuminating. Despite my wide disagreement with the author on many issues, I found myself agreeing with his complaints that the courts decisionmaking is often long winded and confusing, heavily influenced by outside sources. Essentially, to borrow a phrase from the book, they are making it up as they go along. I recommend it to anyone interested in Canadian constitutional law.

Rating:
Summary: Not a very scholarly book.
Review: This book seems to have been derived from a predetermined agenda. It is full of simplistic generalizations and has a rather malignant tone, especially regarding the impact of feminism on the Supreme Court of Canada. Unless you already agree with the author's point of view, and are inclined to encourage one who "preaches to the choir," you will gain very few objective insights into the subject. I suggest you turn to other sources for unbiased information.

Rating:
Summary: Not a very scholarly book.
Review: while a well researched and argued piece, this book fails its readers as an anachronistic piece of scholarship. the "key pillars" of judicial integirty that the author negatively defines contemporary canadian jurists against crumbled long ago into the dust of ozymendias.

while self-evident that everyone should wish to support a judiciary that sports both honesty and integrity, the authors true intention is to butress a school of legal philosophy that is over 100 years old. these formalist and positivist notions of legal decision making and knowledge building are as dead as notions of national homogenaity and elitist decision making. further, it is ridiculous to attempt to dichotomize the legal system from politics, as does this book, because they are one and the same. understanding how that relationship should be re-articulated is the work of future scholars. this book is the work of one whose time has passed.