When Politicians Score Points by Skewering Judges, Democracy Loses
How political leaders can engage with the judiciary without eroding public confidence in the rule of law
In healthy democracies, criticism of judicial reasoning can be legitimate. However, claims that judges are ideological opponents of the people are not. While all politicians should debate policy, criticize laws and propose reforms, in this day and age, it is not uncommon to hear elected officials publicly assail judges or court rulings to advance short‑term partisan aims. By doing so, they inflict long‑term damage on public confidence in the rule of law and on the actual independence of the judiciary.
Conflict with the Judiciary
Judicial independence is not a judicial perk; it is a public guarantee. As the Canadian Judicial Council explains, “Canadians will be heard by impartial and independent federally appointed judges” free from pressure from governments or other actors. Public confidence depends not only on judges being independent, but on their courts appearing independent. When politicians question judges’ motives, attack their integrity, or demand “accountability” for particular rulings, they undermine both.1
Chief Justice Richard Wagner has repeatedly warned that attacks on courts and misinformation about rulings erode the rule of law. He has cautioned elected officials to read decisions before reacting and flagged the broader democratic risks of personal attacks on judges. In 2025, he described global attempts “to politicize the courts, erode public confidence… and weaken institutions” as “deeply concerning,” adding that no democracy is immune.2
Recent events in Canada show how political commentary on judicial decisions corrodes trust, threatens judicial independence, and risks normalizing a “politics over law” mindset. For example, Ontario Premier Doug Ford has, at times, moved from critiquing bail outcomes to casting judges as “bleeding‑heart” ideologues, even musing about electing judges3. However, courts have consistently reaffirmed that judicial independence protects Canadians4 and is “a cornerstone of our constitutional democracy.”5 We do not want a system where judges campaign for votes or tailor decisions to popular sentiment. Doing so would transform courts from neutral arbiters into political actors, making rulings vulnerable to pressure from parties and interest groups. Judicial decisions would no longer turn on law and evidence but on the preferences of the loudest or most organized constituencies. In short, electing judges or painting them as political opponents invites exactly the kinds of influence and instability that judicial independence is meant to prevent.
Contentious constitutional rulings—such as the Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision upholding the federal carbon pricing framework, which drew sharp political reaction nationwide6 — are exactly when political leaders must model respect for the courts. Disagreement is normal; legislative response is appropriate. But suggesting that courts should “stay in their lane” undermines constitutional checks and balances.7
Political reactions can also unintentionally impose pressure on courts. After the 2018 Gerald Stanley verdict, federal political statements—though well‑intentioned—appeared to signal dissatisfaction with the judiciary. Legal professionals warned this could create the impression that judges should consider political reaction, even though appellate courts remain independent. Chief Justice Wagner has similarly noted that selective outrage, misreporting, and superficial readings of Supreme Court decisions can lead legislatures to denounce rulings they have not read, fueling public mistrust.8
Measurable Decline in Public Confidence
Research shows that political rhetoric can have lasting effects. A study conducted by Justice Canada reported that between 2008 and 2023, the percentage of Canadians with “a great deal of trust” in the courts fell from 26% to 11%, while “no trust” more than doubled—findings from Crandall and Lawlor as well as the National Justice Survey.9 Their peer‑reviewed work shows partisanship is now a strong predictor of support for Canadian courts, suggesting political elites’ messages shape public attitudes.
Strengthening Democracy
Nevertheless, Canada has taken constructive steps to bolster confidence without compromising independence. Parliament’s 2023 reforms to the Judges Act modernized the judicial‑conduct regime with clearer, timelier, and more transparent processes—reassuring the public that misconduct is addressed while preserving decisional independence. The Canadian Judicial Council’s 2024 report details the new panels, lay participation, and publication policies.10 The Supreme Court and Justice Minister have also codified governance and funding understandings to respect the separation of powers and reinforce independence.11
If political leaders want to protect Canada’s democratic foundations, they can start by embracing a few simple principles for engaging with the judiciary—principles that reinforce public confidence and keep disagreements where they belong: in the realm of law, not politics.
- Disagree on outcomes, not motives: Criticizing a ruling or its legal reasoning is fair game. Suggesting that judges act as partisan actors is not. When leaders frame judicial decisions as politically motivated, they undermine a core institution whose legitimacy depends on perceived neutrality.
- Read before reacting: Instant denunciations—often issued before a judgment is even read—fuel misinformation and weaken public understanding. Slowing down long enough to absorb the decision is not only responsible leadership, it’s essential to maintaining trust.
- Respect lawful checks: Canada provides structured avenues for contesting judicial outcomes: appeals, legislative amendments, and new laws. Threatening funding, launching personal attacks, or attempting to delegitimize the bench fall outside those boundaries and erode democratic norms.
- Model constitutional literacy: Public confidence grows when leaders explain the basics: courts review laws, not platforms; judicial decisions are about legality, not popularity; and an unwelcome outcome can still be constitutionally sound. Clear, calm explanations help citizens understand the system.
In the short term, attacking judges might energize a political base. But over time, it teaches citizens to distrust the very institution designed to ensure fairness between governments and the governed. Canada’s leaders—federal, provincial, and municipal—should commit to a simple democratic ethic: challenge the law through the law, and keep judicial independence beyond partisan reach.
2. “Supreme Court chief justice says threats to rule of law ‘troubling’” by Holly Lake for CBA National Magazine
3. “Premier Ford’s judicial independence rant draws ire” by Dale Smith for CBA National Magazine
4. Provincial Court of BC Annual Report 2022/23
5. Judicial Independence, Ontario Superior Court of Justice
6. References re: Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2021 SCC 11
7. Politicians across Canada react to Supreme Court's carbon tax ruling, March 25, 2021, CBC News
8. Canada’s top judge says politicians should read decisions before speaking, June 3, 2025, The Canadian Press
9. Perceptions of and confidence in Canada’s criminal and civil justice systems, Government of Canada
10. Canadian Judicial Council Report to Canadians on the Review of Complaints Against Federally Appointed Judges, March 2024
11. Accord to strengthen the independence of the Supreme Court of Canada
