Richard Albert – … a graduate of Yale, Oxford, and Harvard, is an Assistant Professor at Boston College Law School, where he specializes in constitutional law and democratic theory. He writes about constitutional politics, the separation of powers, the role of courts in liberal democracy, and religion in public life.
Richard Albert – “But for the moment, if anyone can articulate a good reason why Supreme Court appointees should not be bilingual, I would be curious to hear it.”
Fallacy of appeal to ignorance
Well apart from all those important university credentials what else has this guy done ? Constitutional law is a far cry from understanding a nation’s history or culture. And why should we care what this jumped up squirt has to say about how Canada manages her affairs, legal and otherwise. This is more post-modernistic multicultural trash talk.
Well first of all, Richard Albert, your opinion is not all that important in the scheme of things. Your vote counts as “one”….just like mine.
Second of all, how about this? The vast majority of Canadians are NOT bilingual and there is no requirement (either legally or practically) to be so. To simply disqualify the majority because of a requirement to be bilingual is the height of stupidity. The kind of thing one would expect from an academic. I wonder if it will pop loudly when Richard Albert pulls his head out?
They are bilingual – English and Legalese.
This American should lobby his own government to become bilingual before he makes comment on ours.
Just another talking head, trying to make more jobs for the talking heads.
The lawyers try to build and maintain the fences in our society which attempt to make our world a better place to live. Their biggest problem is that all they do is make everyone criminals in the process, because we all break the laws which they they have made. Then they get rich prosecuting and defending us from ourselves.
A never ending cesspool of greed and slitting of unicorn hairs!
His contention holds no water. If a SCJ needs to hear an argument in a different language then use a translator/ear piece. Just like in the HOC and the UN.
For the same reason we accomodate people who have disabilities with prosthetics, wheel chairs etc, so we should accomodate unilingual justices similiarly.
The statment… “…articulate a good reason why Supreme Court appointees should not be bilingual…” seems reasonable, on it’s face, because it is.
The statement seeks to confuse the position of _requiring_ justices to be bilingual with excluding those that are bilingual.
I can not think of a good reason why SCC judges should not be tri-lingual, or even have command of a dozen languages; but to require it? No.
It is April Fools Day, after all.
Why is it that most “constitutional scholars” churned out recently seem focused on finding constitutional “loopholes” to allow their favorite brand of utopian theory into the interpretation of rule of law?
Why is that huh?
Wait am minute, which country are we talking about? the SCOTUS or CA or both? Or is it just April Fools?
Richard Albert speaks English, French, German, Greek, Haitian Creole, Italian and Spanish.
Raised by a single mother who traveled from Canada to Haiti, hard work and adaptability became part of his makeup…
Today, Albert borrows from his professional experiences — as a clerk in the Canadian Supreme Court and representing Fortune 500 companies as a corporate attorney for the international law firm of Shadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP — to inform his opinions in the classroom and in the media. He is regularly published in editorials across the country, including The Huffington Post and Politico.com, and has been tapped by political figures and candidates for policy advice.
Show some respect to a man who may be Canada’s next Iggy-style prodigal son.
OK, I’ve got a good reason: Maybe the unilingual person has a better command of the law than any available bilingual people out there.
I wonder if he’d be so obtuse if a candidate spoke only French.
There’s a rather large difference between should not be bilingual and are not required to be bilingual.
I can’t think of a reason why they should not bilingual.
I assume however, that the primary requirement for membership in the Supreme Court is their record as a judge … not their ability to speak both official languages.
And what qualifies you as bilingual? Four years of high school French? Can read most of a Corn Flakes box?
Jean Cretien was Prime Minister and he didn’t speak either official language.
I do have a vivid picture of the NDP member who sponsored the bill complaining when a unilingual French jurist was rejected because (s)he wasn’t bilingual. Yeah, right.
“if anyone can articulate a good reason why Supreme Court appointees should not be bilingual, I would be curious to hear it.”
No, I will NOT give a reason. You made an extraordinary claim, YOU prove it! Prove why a bilingual judge in the highest Court in the Country must be bilingual.
This isn’t about service at a fast food joint, it’s about law and justice.
If this guy is on of the great new Liberal thinkers, we’re all in a lot of trouble.
*
you wanna get the most bang for your buck…
shouldn’t they be required to speak cree?
yeah, peace moonbeam… bring it.
*
Gus — Good call!!!
I was in Queen’s Court on Tuesday(federal,not provincial,supporting a friend).One of the defendants had a Punjabi interpreter who could barely speak English. The judge told them,get someone in here who can speak both languages clearly.The lawyer said but your honour,he can translate.The judge said translate Punjabi to gibberish does not count!So should this judge be able to speak Punjabi??? The question the prosecution raised was,what is he doing here if he cannot speak English?Judge agreed,and told them get a speaking English/Punjabi translater for next Tuesday,or he would render a decision! Good on him
Another Harvard American trying to run our country. No Thanks.
The ultimate goal is to break Quebec’s traditional hold on political leadership and transfer it to New Brunswick.
Because the good professor is bilingual, he is merely attempting to remove competition for a future chance at appointment to the Supreme Court. As long as there is at least one member of the supreme court competent in each official language, then our two language groups are represented.
Until our education system produces all graduates with a competency in both official languages, then the choosing of only bilingual justices is discriminatory, leading primarily to Quebec or New Brunswick justices (exclude the West anyone?).
Moi, je peux parler francais si necessaire, mais je ne suis pas un avocat! J’aime mieux les avions.
This is a little unfortunate. Prof. Albert (a Canadian who clerked for the Chief Justice and, through his writing, regularly expresses a love for this country) is attacked for an unpopular opinion?
If you are familiar with his work, you will know that Prof. Albert approaches political debate in an open and honest way. He’s always willing to listen to counter-arguments, and engage those with whom he disagrees.
If you think the idea is ludicrous, fine, make a cogent argument. And if you do it at ThePolitic, Richard will, most likely, respond in a respectful manner.
Well Jonathan, which do you prefer rocks or words? Personally, when I get a silly idea I’d rather be talked down from it. Rather than have some liberal physically beat it out of me, as seems to be the pattern of late as evidenced by the Coulter visit.
Let’s see, if this bill were passed into Law, then I would not be qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice, yet Gilles Duceppe would be eligible.
Sound like a fair trade-off?
I guess if you throw in that Stephane Dion (Franglish wouldn’t count would it?) would also not be eligible, then the trade-off becomes fairer, but still not just.
Well, if Canadia has two official languages and not everybody speaks English, there is a certain amount of sense on its face of requiring Supreme Court justices to be able to understand the lawyers and plaintiffs/defendants without a translator.
Of course, it also closes the pool drastically, and monoglot French speakers aren’t that vastly common, which is the obvious negative.
(“Why privilege Queubecois so heavily, at the expense of everyone else?”)
Has anyone considered the following two facts:
1. By convention, three of nine Supreme Court Justices are from Quebec. This serves the dual purpose of ensuring there are justices who speak French and understand Quebec’s civil law system.
2. Anyone smart enough to get to the Supreme Court is far more likely to speak both languages–particularly if they have ambitions of being on the Supreme Court.
We don’t need all justices to speak both language and we now have a system in place the ensures a sufficient number do. Where is the reason for requiring they all speak both languages? Has there actually be problems at the court because some judges only speak one of the official languages?
Last place I lived, bilingual meant you could order at any restaurant (dos cervesas pour favor) and talk to your gardener.
Anyone familiar with the Canadian public service knows that in order to get above peon level you have to parle de fancais, even if you work in Tuk. Uni-lingual anglos have been discriminated for years.
batman….speaking more than one language does not necessary equate to “smart”. Often it has more to do with “academic” which often means nothing.
Correlation not causation, Luft. I’ll put money on there being a lose correlation between IQ and multilingualism.
Its not IQ that brings intelligence. Its how you use your brain with its different promptitudes.
Nothing substitutes clear thinking, logic, & an understanding human nature. These attributes welded to hard work, make for wisdom.
Just look at our academics , politicians, & scientists these days to see the degeneration of thought even in our best.
With no morals, just PC rhetoric, joined with the dogma of relativism. Have turned many of these minds into depraved thought.
Sharon Stone has an IQ of 170. Hows that worked for her?
Ultimately we forget its not just the mind that drives us completely, but our carnal nature as well. Not to mention our psyche.
That makes decision making chaotic. Its what makes us human . Oh yeah, My IQ is 95.
JMO
JMO: I.Q. is the best measurement of intelligence. I’m not talking making any claims about it being valuable or essential to being a good judge. My assertion is that a person smart enough (and let’s add hard-working enough) to get to the Supreme Court is probably far more likely to be bilingual. That reality, coupled with the fact that 3/9 of the Supreme Court Justices have to be from Quebec, makes a requirement of bilingualism for Supreme Court Justices superfluous.
You didn’t engage my point at all.
batman
there are two basic “intelligence” bases, language and mathematics
people who’s base is language will be bettor at multi-language skills than those of us that are math based, and this plays a far greater roll in language ability than IQ, tho IQ may help some what
GYM: Where do you get ‘two bases of intelligence’? IQ tests assess a variety of skills, including arithmetic and verbal compression.
And again, what does this have to do with my point?
Let me deconstruct my argument for you.
There is a proposal that would require that all new Supreme Court Justices must be bilingual. I am arguing there is no need for this requirement for two reasons:
1. It is unnecessary for every judge to be bilingual.
2. The current restrictions on becoming a Supreme Court Justice are sufficient to ensure there will be enough bilingual Justices because
a. Three of the Justices must be from Quebec, by convention.
b. To become a Supreme Court Justice, one must be (1) intelligent and (2) hard-working. People who are both intelligent and hardworking are more likely to have learned the official language which they did not originally speak. This is a matter of intuition. Most people are ‘capable’ of learning a second language but it takes (1) hard-work and (2) is easier for those who are intelligent enough to get into law school and get far enough in the legal field to be considered for the Supreme Court.
Does this all make sense?
batman
In Europe most people know plenty of languages. You pick up the faculty when a baby till 12. There you don’t have countries the sise of continents held together by one language. The French in Canada are dying through having no kids. Its now only 16% of the population. Why are we continuing with the French farce? There are more Germans here then French.
In Canada its still the 19th century.
Actually about 21.5% of Canadians speak French as their first language; less than 1% have German as a first language. And the ‘critical period’ for learning a language ends at about age 5 for most people–after that they will have an accent.
If you’re talking about ethnicity, the 2006 census indicates that 22% of Canadians consider themselves ‘French’ while only 10% consider themselves ‘German.’ Also, 66% of Quebeckers referred to themselves as ‘Canadian.’
Do a quick google search before you post factual information that can be so easily falsified. By ANY measure, there are more French here than Germans.
Finally, where do you get this ‘French farce’ garbage? I’m not making any claims about it being good or bad that Canada has two official languages. I’m simply arguing that requiring all Justices of the Supreme Court to be bilingual is unnecessary.
I’m starting to have doubts that your IQ is even 95. This is my third post trying to explain my relatively simple argument. You aren’t engaging with it at all.