Pols test 2
Aug 2016 Announcement (for the replacement of judge Cromwell)
1. Creation of Advisory Board 2. Task: Identify suitable, functionally bilingual candidates 3. Application Process: Judges apply through Officer of Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs
2015 Liberal Platform
• 'Restore dignity' to relationship between government and SCC • SCC appointment: transparent, inclusive, accountable • 'Proper consultation' w/ legal profession • Functionally bilingual
Government asks for a Reference
'Advisory' opinion on any 'question of law or fact' o In practice, binding o Advisory opinion: is an opinion issued by a court or a commission like an election commission that does not have the effect of adjudicating a specific legal case, but merely advises on the constitutionality or interpretation of a law No concrete dispute o Considered non-justiciable elsewhere Governments get privileged access
Government as Plaintiff
Government sues someone else Rare, but 3 instances: 1. Sues business that did work for government 2. One government sues another 3. Pursues litigation to influence public policy Suing tobacco companies for health care costs
Government Success
Governments are most successful class of litigants Why? Repeat players o Expertise, long-term legal strategies, institutional credibility Political Disadvantage? Still debated
Government as Defendant
Individuals or groups sue government for unfair treatment o Aboriginal title o Refugees o Benefits and Licenses o Slip at hospital Many Charter cases
Government as third-party Intervener
Most common intervener Most often granted leave Cost effective High success rates after intervention (especially federal government)
Why Use References?
Political hot potato - delay, and transfer responsibility Buck-passing: "The Court made me do it" Legitimacy for something unpopular Eliminate caucus dissent Control of facts - Case selection Speed
Attorney General
Prov and fed level: gov't represented by AG Regulation and conduct 'for or against the Crown or any department' AG Canada: 'Canada's largest law firm'
The Canadian Reference Power
References make the court engage in "Abstract review" of virtually any issue Not technical issues, but politically sensitive ones: o Fed/prov-relations (s.91/92, institutional rules - div-of-power, Patriation, Senate, SCC Act - all reference cases) o Moral issues (SSM, Prostitution) Gov't use references (courts) for political reasons Most references are cross governmental The great depression and megaconstitutional politics caused an increase in reference cases
Sitora "a judge unbound" : critisisms of Rowe
Rowe's view representative of "the smugly self-assured one that is prevalent in the Canadian legal community" Frankness is refreshing, but distressing - a judge bound by neither modesty or the law Rowe's "judges make law" = doesn't feel bound by traditional constraints (precedent, statutory and constitutional text). Bad for the Rule of Law
Federal gov. appointments:
SCC (9) The federal court (34) Federal court of appeal (12) The tax court All judges in 96 courts Made by the cabinet on advice of the minister of justice Chief justice are recommended by the prime minister
Screening vs. Nominating
The difference is the stage at which the gov. uses a independent, non-governmental body to assess potential candidates Political influence is limited by screening and nominating committees
What impact did World War II have on politics
"Rights revolutions": since World War II, politics is increasingly framed in terms of 'rights' • Rights documents spread throughout the world: • Canadian Bill of Rights (1960), Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) • Government policies/actions measured against a standard of human rights
Britain (common) selection model
*"Adjudicatory" model* • From pool of experienced barristers (aka lawyers) • Recent changes: nominating commission
US (common) selection model
*"Democratic input"* • USSC: Pres. nomination, and then the Senate confirms • State: Committee w/ confirmation vote • Some direct elections for the judges at state level
France (civil) selection model
*"Professional" model* • Civil servants like any other (except constitutional court) • 'Judge school'
Judicial Appointment Committees (JACs)
*1988* a committee established to create a better selection process of judges • Usually consist of nominees from: 1. Chief justice in province (Court of Appeal) 2. Law societies 3. Government (often lay person) • Rules for rankings vary • Some screening, others nominating • Politics/patronage can still be present
Did the Charter give Canadians rights in 1982?
*No* We even had pre-Charter codified rights • Quebec Act, 1774 (religion), BNA Act, 1867 (minority language/education rights) Documents do not guarantee rights • By themselves can be mere "parchment barriers" • Soviet Union had a BoR • US vs. Canada, WWII, Japanese internment
2004-Present: SCC Changes
*Pre-2004* • PM Appoints Judges • Some consultation w/ legal profession *2004 - Abella and Charron* 1. Advisory committee - list of candidates 2. Justice Minister appears before Parl. Committee to explain their choice- not judges themselves • "Like sending your mother to do your job interview"
After the recommendations (trudeau era)
1. Minister of Justice (MJ) Consults • ... w/ just about everyone • (recall that harper's changes were critiqued for not having consultation) 2. MJ presents recommendation to PM 3. MJ and Chair of Board discuss the process in Parliament 4. MPs and Senators question nominee in Parliament 5. PM makes official appointment
(recall) Cdn Council of Churches summarized 3 aspects of Public Interest Standing:
1. Serious issue raised as to invalidity of the law? 2. Is plaintiff directly affected? If not, does plaintiff have genuine interest in validity? 3. Is there another reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the Court?
Harper's next four appointments followed the same process as Rothstein's
2011-2012: Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner: • Minister of Justice consults w/ provincial AG, senior members of the judiciary and legal organizations to produce pool • MPs comm'ee (5) provides 3-person list (unranked) PM selects candidate • Hearing before ad hoc Parliamentary Committee
Magna Carta 1215
.Law binds King too
The Harper three changes to committee system: (s. 96)
1) Judicial rep becomes non-voting chair 2) Police rep added to the judicial advisory committee (JAC) • Selected by gov't, which means gov't appoints 4 of 7 voting members 3) "Highly recommended" category eliminated • So now it went to either recommended on not recommended
Politics can enter the judicial appointment process in four distinct ways:
1. *Patronage*: appointment as a reward for past service to or support of a political party - Was a dominant factor in judicial appointment before confederation 2. *Regional representation* 3. *Group representation* 4. *Ideological compatibility*
Chief Justice
Head of the Judicial branch at the NATIONAL level
What is an Interest Group?
An independent, non-governmental group united by a policy area, which lobbies and advocates its point of view to lawmakers ex. • LEAF (Women's Legal Education and Action Fund) • NCC (National Citizens' Coalition) • NAACP
Two hats of the attorney general:
Attorney general Minister of business? o Means they are not independent
2006 - Marshall Rothstein (Harper appointment)
In 2005, Paul Martin's liberal government created an advisory committee that was used by Harper in 2006 to appoint Marshall Rothstein 2006 - Marshall Rothstein (Trudeau appointment) • Selected from a short list by Liberal advisory committee • Political party reps, provincial rep, law society rep, judicial representative, two lay members • Nominating - sort of *(pick 3 from 8)* • Conservatives accept short list • *Rothstein had to appear at the committee and answer questions from MPs • This was televised * • The committee was chaired by Peter Hogg • Cordial, collegial hearing
The Trudeau changes (s. 96) (around 2015)
Changes to committee system 1) Judicial rep *becomes voting chair* 2) Police rep *removed* • Gov't now only appoints 3 of 7 voting members • 4 of 7 are judges/lawyers 3) "Highly recommended" category *reinstated* 4) New element: *diversity* brought into the process
Critiques of the harper changes
Critiqued by Chief Justice & legal community: no consultation • Said that they moved away from merit-based and become more politicized • Justin Trudeau later reversed his three rules
the nadon controversy
In and Out • Supreme Court Act: 3/9 Justices must come from Quebec (s. 96 or lawyer) • Justice Nadon = FCA (s. 101) • Does this count as Quebec? • SCC (6-1): No • Harper appoints Gascon as a replacement CJ McLachlin called gov't to 'flag' issue before nomination • SCC swore Nadon in, later ruled ineligible • PMO says CJ 'lobbied', CJ says 'customary' • Mulcair: 'Unprecedented and inexplicable attack'
Government as Prosecutor
Enforces offenses against the state o State represents the victim/society Federalism o Criminal law created by feds o ... often prosecuted by provs o = uneven enforcement Prosecutorial discretion
Section 101 Courts
Federally established and appointed
Why interveners are good
Intervener should be thought of as 'Judicial Democrats' - more perspectives help democracy • A provocative idea is embedded in their legal arguments and political appeals Litigation helps diffuse minorities: Aboriginals, LGBTQ, disability organizations • Corporations, professional and small-c cons too • Lots of ideological diversity because all group are using the courts Make gov'ts respect rights • Because they can make laws that hurt minorities because legislatures are unrepresentative • Judicial review enhances democracy
what are the benefits of judicial review
Judicial review is an institution that is distanced from the frayed (legislative and executive) to guard the principles preserve justice and dignity of that society • If this is done it will ensure that the executive and the legislative branches conform to the established norm Because of the charter, judges are allowed to strike down laws that have been made by the duly elected representatives of the people o This is why people like to that it is undemocratic o However it is argued that his democratic because there must abide by the rule of law
Which Prime Minister came after Pierre Trudeau and what was his impact
Mulroney Mulroney criticized Trudeau for allowing certain appointments to go through and said he patronage still existed even with the CBA because he did not follow their recommendations for provincial appointments "You had an option" (1984) - Mulroney
Study of 1984-88 (Russell/Ziegel) what did it find?
Mulroney Appointments: the study shows that Mulroney did not rush to meet the recommendations of the CBA and CALT before 1988 • His elected pledge was to reduce patronage and *that is why his reforms in 1988* were important o 228 appointments made o 39 (17%) to Courts of Appeal o 116 (51%) to s.96 trial level o 6 to Federal Court (3 trial, 3 appeal) o 3 to the Supreme Court Mulroney: Who Were They? • 82.5% men, 17.5% women • 45% had 20-30 years experience • 60% from private firms • Political Affiliations • Major Tory supporters: 24% • Minor Tory affiliation: 23% • No Affiliation: 46% • Major Opposition supporter: 5% • Minor Opposition Affiliation: 2%
s.96 Selection: 1988 reforms was done by which government
Mulroney government
Trudeau started off by using the same process as who
Mulroney's 1988 reforms: Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs: • Collects names, sends to JACs (screening) JACs consist of nominees from: • Chief Justice of the Province • Provincial law society • Provincial branch of CBA • Provincial Attorney-General • Federal Minister of Justice • 2 others appointed by Justice (since '94) *3-part scale: Highly, Recommend, Unable*
"Public Character" and rights protection
• "In England [and Canada] there seems to be more liberty in the customs than in the laws of the people" - Tocqueville [Reading 1.4] • Customs, habits, beliefs - the moral quality of public opinion - of a society is more dependable than the "paper barriers" of constitutional "guarantees"
Timeline: Relaxed Intervener Rules
Pre-1980s: ad hoc (Lavell, Morgentaler '75) 1983: Rule 32 and Rule 18 • Government has "right to intervene" in constitutional cases • Groups have right to intervene in higher courts when case appealed 1984-5 - Justice Wilson vs. Justice Estey • Counter-majoritarian vs. 'fritter away' 1984: Borovoy (CCLA) writes letter saying it is not fair to have the government intervene and not allow rights-advocacy group to intervene 1987: SCC Changes (permissive): • Interveners allowed if "submissions would be useful to the Court and different from those of the other parties" 1999: Lovelace - two-part step: 1. Group must gain court's permission 2. Court later decides if oral arguments allowed, and how long 2002: Codified into law
section 96 Courts
Provincially established, federally appointed
Theme 1- Transparency
Publicly Available: 1. Board's assessment criteria 2. Questionnaire for applicants 3. Certain answers provided by PM's nominee • Scherzer: We now know basic process for how justices selected
Theme 4 - Diversity
SCC homogenous: • No Indigenous, visible minority, non-Christian/Jewish, non-heterosexual • The proportion of visible minority in a Canadian courts is lower than the overall population Hausegger: diversity brings different perspectives to bench • Scholarly evidence: gender matters for judicial decision-making Coyne: One axis of diversity (region) displaced by another (language) • Sossin: Trudeau's approach privileges French-English bilingualism • Bilingual white male candidate preferable to unilingual female visible minority? • French/English bilingual better than English/Indigenous bilingual?
Trudeau's advisory board
Seven members: • Retired judge • 2 lawyers • Legal Scholar • 3 appointed by Minister of Justice • Two must be non-lawyers • Chair: Kim Campbell What the Board Does: • Encourage people to apply • Review applicants • Submit shortlist of 3 to 5 names to the PM • (Non-binding)
SCC Appointments Post-1949
Some demographic change • (esp. gender since 1982 - 4/9 justices female) Religion and patronage declines... ... but do connections still matter? - Michael Bastarache (1997-2008): Partner in Chrétien's old law firm - Marie Deschamps (2002-2012): Husband Former Quebec Liberal Cabinet Minister
Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs:
The official in charge of coordinating the process for the appointment of those judges who fall under the federal minister of Justice • Collects names, sends to JACs (screening)
which cases liberalized standing for individuals
Thorson McNeil Borowski
Why use courts rather than the executive/legislature/bureaucracy? (8 reasons)
Why not: • Expensive • Time-consuming • Judges possess "neither the purse nor the sword" • Hollow Hope: can courts promote social change? why: • Influence public policy • Raise profile of an issue • Permanence of judicial decisions, especially constitutional ones • High staying power • Even precedent reversals - still 20 years!
1984: Alan Borovoy (CCLA)
writes open letter to SCC [Reading 6.2] • Encourage SCC to relax rules • Charter changed things • Gov't shouldn't get privileged access, need to balance that with communities affected • SCC's decisions have impact direct parties • US experience shows that interveners views aid judicial interpretation
Manfredi: Policy Consequences of LEAF's Legal Mobilization
Women's Legal Education and Action Fund: 1. Law affects women as a group differently than men 2. Women are oppressed on a basis of their race, class, sexual orientation 3. Law is a tool for egalitarian social change LEAF's efforts influence in/outside of SCC Direct and indirect impact on law/policy: Abortion, family law, LBGTQ rights, pornography, sexual assault 33% increase in favourable outcome when LEAF is involved in SCC litigation Championed use of social facts and judicial education through law journals
Smiley, "Courts, Legislatures, and the Protection of Human Rights"
Writing in 1975 (i.e., pre-Charter) Rights are not zero sum *Adding the Charter is not about getting rights, we have them already • The question is who defines their limits* Judges do not possess special competencies Parliament has enacted laws that expand rights • (abortion, capital punishment, divorce, hate speech, official languages)
Judicial policymaking power grows as...
as Constitutional Law Expands, especially with the addition of entrenched bills of rights. o e.g. addition of Charter in 1982
Why interveners are bad
asks courts to overrule what the legislature has chosen Core of judicialization of politics has been unchallenged • Judicialization: things that used to be dealt with by legal rights, are now dealt with by judges Hein's diversity = more lawyers/judges (judges/lawyers are actually less representative than legislatures) • Groups not actually 'disadvantaged' Undemocratic - in more than one sense Undermines the influence of elected officials Not grassroots movement, needs gov't funding via Court Challenges Program (Topic 9)
Canadian bar association (CBA)
created in 1965 in hopes to reduce patronage and provide a non-partisan source of advice to the government on judicial appointment • Rated candidate as either "qualified or not qualified" and no candidates were appointed if they were rated unqualified
Supreme Court Act
decides who may be appointed judges • 5. Any person may be appointed a judge who is or has been a judge of a superior court of a province or a barrister or advocate of at least *ten years standing at the bar* of a province. *Three judges from Quebec* • 6. At least three of the judges shall be appointed from among the judges of the Court of Appeal or of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec or from among the advocates of that Province.
Who Litigates?
examples: • Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) • Women's Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) • Assembly of First Nations • Canadian Labour Congress • Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops • Canadian Medical Association
Court Challenges Program
is a non-profit organization whose stated purpose is "to provide financial assistance for important court cases that advance language and equality rights guaranteed under Canada's Constitution • Lots of critiques • Should benefit a broader range of people • Government shouldn't pay for people to sue it
Governments 5 roles in Court
most common litigant 1. Prosecutor 2. Defendant in civil suits 3. Plaintiff in civil suits 4. Reference cases 5. Third-party intervener
section 92 Courts
provincially established and appointed
Rowe's Questionnaire [Reading 4.5]:
qualified Canadian lawyer judges can apply for an appointment by completing this questionnaire: His answers: "the Supreme Court judges ordinarily make law, rather than simply applying it." "...Canadians have come to accept and embrace this enhanced role for judges." "Should the Court lead or mirror a shared sense of justice? The answer is, of course, both. Generally, it should lead when the time is ripe to do so, having regard to the needs and aspirations of Canadians."
Glorious Revolution
represents government checks and balances?
What changes to the appointment process happened in 2014
the 2006 (Rothstein) process was abandoned • No selection panel or committee • Allegations of leak to Globe • "Compromised the integrity" • Not "abolished," "under reconsideration" • Continues with Russell Brown • Back to pre-2004?
Judicial advisory committee and who it consists of
the appropriate screening committee for the province or territories • JACs consist of nominees from: • Chief Justice of the Province • Provincial law society • Provincial branch of CBA • Provincial Attorney-General • Federal Minister of Justice • 2 others appointed by Justice (since '94) Rated candidates on a 3-part scale: Highly, Recommend, Unable
Megaconstitutional
the desire for a new national unity and constitutional order
minister of justice
the member of government responsible for the administration of the justice system within a given jurisdiction
why do we appoint judges instead of elect them
there is tension between judicial expertise and political influence The assumption is that if judges are appointed in non-political selection, then there will be a non-political court o If a judge is impartial, they would be chosen based on the legal training and steady work habits
5 themes associated with Trudeau's changes
transparency bilingualism regionalism diversity Merit
Political Disadvantage Theory
view positing that groups are likely to seek remedies in courts if *they do not succeed in the electoral process* • Groups litigate because unable to penetrate other avenues of government • Politically disadvantaged - marginalized, poor, powerless • Courts are only recourse • Prominent in USA - NAACP
Traditional Canadian View
• ...our judges and lawyers, supported by the press and public opinion, reject any concept of the courts as positive instruments in the political process... Political action outside the party-parliamentary structure tends to be suspect - and not the least because it smacks of Americanism. • Kenneth McNaught, 1975
Improvements of 1988 the reform
• Commissioner now arm's length • Provincial influence • More systematic screening process
UK parliamentary vs. US judicial supremacy
• Courts function differently in the two systems • Written vs. unwritten constitutions British vs. American (vs. Canadian?) approaches • All are liberal democracies, but different designs • Canada sits in between US and UK • Canada has moved closer toward US-style
2008: Justice Cromwell (Harper appointments)
• Did not follow Rothstein procedure • Appointment procedure would be determined by which PM was in power • 2008 election, then prorogation crisis • He appointed Cromwell without scrutiny in parliament because "they need 9 judges to operate right", but it is assumed he just wanted to hold on to power when it looked like the liberals would win
Canada v. DTESWU
• Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society group wanted to challenge Canada's prostitution laws. • SCC granted standing (2012) • Lawsuit must only be "a reasonable and effective means to bring the case to court," not the only reasonable and effective way • Completion of relaxed standing rules
Nominating Committee
• Examines candidates' applications • So it does the initial recruitment • Creates short list from which appointing government must (?) choose
Section 96 Selection evolution Hausegger et al. study 2012 How did 1988 effect future appointments
• Federal Appointments 1989-2003 • 856 appointments made • Some promotions from 92-96 or 96 trial to appeal • Who were they? • 69% men • 32% women • 55% came from private law firms Did the screening committees of 1988 make a difference? • Political affiliations of appointees • Major Gov't supporters: 17% • Minor Gov't affiliation: 23% • No Affiliation / no data: 55% • Major Opposition supporter: 1% • Minor Opposition affiliation: 3%
Interest Group Influence: indirect vs direct
• Indirect • Education seminars • Law journals • Influencing appointments? • Direct • As parties themselves • Sponsoring/directing litigation • Intervening
Diversity and s. 96/101 Judges
• Judicial applicants asked about race, gender identity, indigenous status, sexual orientation, physical disability • Non-lawyers can apply to JACs • JAC members receive training in "unconscious bias" • Application forms of successful nominees *published*
Interest Group Involvement
• Little interest-group involvement in the judicial process when... 1) Courts exercise little power 2) Rules of standing are strictly applied Not true in Age of Judicial Power
Who was Trudeau's new nominee & appointment under his new process?
• Malcolm Rowe (Oct. 2016) • 63 years old • Foreign service officer, civil servant, private practice lawyer, lecturer at UO • SCNL 1999, CANL 2001 • First SCC appointment from NFLD • First SCC judge to be appointed under Trudeau gov'ts new process
Problems w/ Political disadvantage theory
• NAACP a case of inductive reasoning • Business groups and (especially) governments often successful in court • Other studies in Canada and USA: Successful groups well-financed, tied to state funding • Repeat Players vs. One-Shotters
Theme 5 - Merit
• Objective? • Degrees, achievements, expertise • Subjective? • Empathy, resilience, interpersonal skills • Representational factors = merit? • Life experience, gender, sexual orientation, race, culture?
Supreme court appointments
• Officially appointed by the Governor-General • Advice of Minister of Justice/Prime Minister • Practicing lawyer for at least ten years or s.96 court judge • Supreme Court Act: 3 from Quebec
After the Appointment (trudeau era)
• One month: Advisory Board submits report w/ statistics • Board can also make recommendations for improvement • Report will be made public • Goal: Increased transparency
Applicants and Qualifications for Trudeaus advisory board
• Only recommend functionally bilingual candidates • Read, understand oral argument, converse w/ counsel w/o need for translation • Support goal of gender-balanced, diverse Court List of qualifications... 1. Personal Skills and Experience • e.g., Knowledge of law, clarity of thought 2. Personal Qualities • e.g., Professional integrity, appreciate a diversity of views, moral courage 3. Institutional Needs of Court • e.g., pub/priv law, subject matter, ensure Court 'reasonably reflective of diversity
Committee variations for the provincial selection process (who screens, who nominates)
• Ontario as leader (JAAC 1988) • Nominating committees: 7/10 • BC, MB, QC, NS, NL, ON, and AB. • AB "Double Hurdle": Screening, then nominating • Screening committees: 2/10 (SK, PEI) • NB: Committee vetoing function on names put forward by Minister • Only MB requires Minister to choose
S. 92 Nominating Committee Criteria
• Professional experience (minimum # of years at bar) • Personal traits (ethics, work ethic) • Community awareness • Reasons for wanting to be a judge • Demographics • Ontario JAAC: "overcoming the under-representation... of women, visible, cultural, and racial minorities"
Theme 3 - Regionalism
• Raybould in August 2016: Next appointment not necessarily from Atlantic Canada • Angered many • Peter MacKay and Lisa Raitt • Canadian Bar Association • Law Society of NL: Constitutional challenge? • House of Commons: 270-0 resolution in favour of respecting "custom" of AC judge
Supreme Court Appointments had 4 components 1875-1949
• Regional representation • Group representation (French/English) • Group representation (religion) • Patronage Mostly informal
3 quotes to consider
• Russell: Only constitutional democracy where leader has unfettered discretion • McCormick: Representation vs. Merit • Macfarlane: Pre-Harper appointments political and ideological, too
Drawbacks of 1988 reform
• Screening Committee, not Nominating • Does not review promotions from s.92 or s.96 • Lack of transparency • Does not have to choose highly recommended • Patronage still a factor (though not as much)
• *Pierre Trudeau* Changes (70s-80s)
• Special Advisor for Judicial Affairs collect info on potential candidates for Minister • Canadian Bar Association (CBA) evaluates potential candidates
Deficiencies in Pierre Trudeau's change (70's-80's)
• Still ad hoc: used abused patronage in the appointment of Saskatchewan judges • No official provincial input • Saskatchewan Judges Affair • Started reducing number of judges as they died or retired so that federal gov. could no longer make appointments • Was not resolved until 1984 when the liberal were defeated
Implications and Findings (96) of the evolution of appointments since 1988
• Still intense lobbying of Minister of Justice • Patronage still important... • ...but worst "political animals" screened out • Varies across provinces • Regional ministers and certain prominent law firms have influence • Move to increase number of women • Perception of fairness • "Best" candidates not always being chosen
Theme 2 - Bilingualism
• Unconstitutional? • In Nadon Reference, SCC said change to 'eligibility criteria' requires unanimous provincial consent • Constitutional? • Process not formally legislated; still executive discretion • Needless? Court already has great translators
Selection of 92 court judges (pre-1990s)
• Until 1990s, most appointed by Attorney General or Premier • Patronage played large role • this led to the establishment of the JAAzC so that there could be better selection of judges
Section 96 selection (pre-1988)
• Up to mid-1970s • Direct appointment by Minister of Justice
Screening Committee
• begins with a list of candidates provided by attorney general • Rates judicial candidates • Sends back to the attorney general • Forwards that list of candidates and their ratings to appointing government
