@MLInstitute's Dave Snow documents the rise of the intervention industry as part of our Court Party series on judicial reform. In short, the increase in the number of interveners has allowed superior courts to take on more clout, even though they have neither the competence nor the mandate to sift through the reams of arguments put forward—often by activist interest groups—as though they were legislatures. It's very timely, as the @SCC_eng is soon set to release it's decision on a consequential case involving the use of the notwithstanding clause - the core element of the Charter that preserves parliamentary primacy and ensures legislatures can contest the court's interpretation of the meaning of rights. "The Supreme Court should not mistake fifty factums for a democratic mandate to rewrite Canada’s constitutional bargain." "Morton and Knopff once described Charter litigation as a way for interest groups to “constitutionalize policy preferences that could not easily be achieved through the legislative process.” In most Charter cases that means securing a preferred outcome in a discrete policy dispute." macdonaldlaurier.ca/the-inte…