Of course. And it's the same here.

I focused on liberty - personal freedom - because it seems to me that it is in that area specifically that the cry of 'legislating from the bench' is sourced.


>The Supreme Court is the highest tribunal for all cases under the Constitution. It is responsible for guaranteeing all citizens equal justice under the law and interpreting the Constitution. It rules on all cases involving the Constitution, not necessarily liberty. It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.
>
>
>>SNIP>
>>>
>>>>....especially the courts, which conservatives love to malign....
>>>
>>>Only when they make up their only rules and legislate from the bench. Isn't that what congress is for?
>>
>>We have the same criticisms here since we got our Constutution in the 1970s.
>>But the fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court, both in Canada and the U.S. as I see it, interpret laws to ensure liberty FOR ALL. So if a law impedes the liberty of **any** - even 1 person - they either have to overturn that law or try again with a new law.
>>
>>Here, in Canada, there have been several ruling against existing laws and the Supreme Court generally allots a period of 18 months or so for adjustments to be rendered.
>>
>>Personal liberty, which both of our Constitutions protect (yours more than ours), cannot tolerate a majority overruling any person's liberty.