The Supreme Law of the Land

Liberals appoint court judges from a liberal-left pool. The judges enter the job carrying the baggage of their social and moral beliefs, values, and biases. The Liberals then exclusively fund leftist causes. The judges rule according to their left-leaning values and opinions. When the ruling is in the bag, the politicians cry "it's the Charter, it's the Charter" (like that little guy who used to jump and shout "the plane!, the plane!"), when it's really not "the Charter", it's extreme-left judges ruling according to their personal views and values.

The judges aren't subject to the Charter; the opposite is true. The Charter is sufficiently general, and the rules of interpretation sufficiently loose, that the judges can declare the Charter to mean just about whatever they want it to. A Charter right to religious freedom can easily be quashed in favour of a sexual orientation right that does not even appear in the Charter.

Supreme court judges do not rule on matters of law as lawyers so much as they rule on matters of public decency and morality. They function more like a collective secular papacy -- only they are more powerful than the Pope, since their decrees become binding law. (Given the amorality of their rulings, we probably should consider them more like anti-popes.) And by stating that they will no longer be bound by "community values,they have thrown off the insufferable burden of having to consider any opinion but their own. What is this if not a new doctrine of Court infallibility? They have become a law unto themselves.

It is not the Charter that is "the supreme law of the land", it is the Charter judges.