dailynewsnblog
So, having had her public temper tantrum over appointing judges, Smith now wants to amend the Constitution so that the decision about who gets to sit as a judge is made by her alone.
To be abundantly clear – painfully so – this is a power grab. Worse, given Smith’s track record, this would ultimately turn out to be nothing less than the politicization of the judiciary.
She claims that Alberta doesn’t have a say in appointing judges to the senior courts in Alberta. This is false – Alberta very much has a seat at the table, but the political seat at the table is not the controlling seat, and that’s what Smith is actually upset about.
Smith has on numerous occasions mused aloud about wanting greater control over the courts – to the extent of wanting to direct the courts in specific cases. I think this should be seen as a great big “Red Alert” warning – the ability of the judiciary to operate independently of politicians and politics is a central pillar that makes democracy viable. The courts are, in some respects, a last resort for citizens who find their rights being trammelled by an overzealous government. Politicians need to recognize the need for curbs on the exercise of power, not dismantle them.
Let’s be clear here, Smith wants to do what the GOP did in the US: turn judicial appointments into matters of political affiliation and judicial subservience to the political “masters”. Consider her comments from November, 2025:
Premier Danielle Smith stated she wants the court system to refrain from interfering with the decisions of elected officials when it comes to matters of public interest, while diminishing its democratic role of holding public representatives accountable.
“Democracy is when the elected officials make decisions,” she said when asked about her response to those who are concerned about the implications of Bill 2 for democracy. “Democracy is not when unelected judges unilaterally make decisions.”
There is a lot to unpack here, in large part because Smith is applying a very selective approach to interpreting things.
First, she’s talking about the concept of “legislative supremacy” (or legislative sovereignty) – a topic which I wrote on in some depth a few months ago. The concept of “legislative sovereignty” is that the final word on writing laws rests with the legislators – but it is not a “carte blanche” where the legislators can write any old law they want and have it in force regardless of the full legal context in which it exists. If that were the case, we would literally have provinces writing their own criminal codes, and completely ignoring central legal constructs like The Constitution (the latter clearly being very much a priority for Smith, it seems).
Second, she is using language here to attempt to invalidate judicial rulings in several ways:
First, she makes the implicit argument that judges should be elected, and if they are not, we should be able to disregard rulings we don’t like. This is, of course, nonsense. Law is complex, and judges necessarily have to be experts in law, and the interpretation of law and case law. Anything less will result in rulings that are in fact unjust. Just because someone wins an election does not make them an expert in anything.
Then she segues into claiming that judges make “unilateral rulings”. That isn’t how courts work. Judges make rulings on matters that are brought before them by the parties involved. Even a so-called “reference ruling” is a matter that is carefully worded and argued before the court. Judges do not sit in their offices and issue rulings on matters “just because they feel like it”. They issue rulings on matters that have been brought before them, and have been heard fully.
She loves to talk about lawmaking as completely divorced from the complexities of legal context. She wants to upend the Constitution because right now, that same document represents an obstacle to her less than democratic instincts. There is a considerable amount of irony in this, since Canada’s Constitution itself is very much the result of democracy and the work of dedicated legislators (who were elected). The fact that it doesn’t say exactly what she wants it to say is … well … her problem.
Smith’s most recent bleating about how judges are appointed has far more to do with her desire to assert personal, political control over the courts than it does with any actual problems in how judges are selected and appointed. That should make all of us worry.
