Canada has a judiciary. This continues to be controversial among the finest of political commentators: newspaper comment section denizens.

Supreme court justices outside of technical legal definitions constitute another drunk at a bar mouthing off; if war is too an important a matter to be left to the generals than certainly public policy is too an improtant matter to be left to a bunch of old unelected cutes who are completely estranged and out of touch with modern reality; the first thing I would due is to kick one of them out on the street and appoint a first year young, 20 year old law student in their place...then I would start making some real changes....but you cannot totally blame them; politically correct and totally gutless politicians have abrogated their responsibilies and have foisted the ball into those old fogies courts as a pass the buck game. Elect some real men who can make decisions and leave those old clowns isolated up on Wellington to play monopoly with themeselves.

I'm not even sure what to say about the start of the comment, aside from pointing out that any system where law is interpreted by judges is inherently going to give said judges a significant role in determining public policy. I'm not sure what to say about the end of the comment, the stuff about needing to elect Real Men who make Decisions instead of politically correct politicians, aside from pointing out that many major policy-influencing Supreme Court cases are about decisions politicians made.

What I'm here to comment on is the middle part:

the first thing I would due is to kick one of them out on the street and appoint a first year young, 20 year old law student in their place

It is possible for Supreme Court of Canada judges to be removed. This basically requires proof of serious misconduct. There is no procedure with any chance of success that can lead to a judge being ousted without reason (and no, the judge being an 'old unelected cute' isn't good enough).

Let's assume, though, that our good commenter was lucky enough to come in just when a judge retires. Would the commenter then be able to appoint some first year 20 year old law student? No. To be appointed to the Supreme Court, one must either have been a provincial superior court judge (which requires at least 10 years of experience after passing the bar) or have been of at least 10 years standing at the bar. A first year law student, with a total of zero years standing at the bar, does not meet the requirements.

Could the commenter change the requirements? No. The requirements are almost unchangeable. Laws regarding the composition of the Supreme Court require consent from all provincial legislatures (some of which require referendums before approving constitutional amendments) and both houses of Parliament (see s.41 of the Constitution Act, 1982). (Linked: a great paper on the Canadian constitutional amendment processes and their incredible difficulty)

So, basically, this plan to change the Canadian judiciary forever is illegal and impossible, in addition to being silly.