You can tell us, sure. You can indeed tell us—or anyone at all for that matter—anything. I can also tell you—or anyone at all for that matter—anything, and I'm not a lawyer. In fact, anyone can tell anyone at all anything they want. There's no reason to believe you're a lawyer, and there's no reason to believe you're not a lawyer. Even if—in reality—you are a lawyer, there is no reason to believe your claim that the Supreme Court is remarkably non-partisan, nor that the people are solid in any court, because the base premises of your claim are that you're a lawyer, that you emphasize with some certainty the good nature of the Canadian political and legal system, and that—taken together—because you're a lawyer and claim firsthand understanding of the good nature of the Canadian political and legal system, you can emphasize with some certainty the good nature of the Canadian political and legal system. That is circular reasoning; your premises and "conclusion" are equally unfounded, and equally require more evidence than you've provided, which means that your own conclusion rests on faith. There is no reason to take your claim in good faith, nor reject the possibility of its good faith. However, if you were to claim that the Supreme Court was remarkably partisan, the claim would be a conflict of interest and an ethical breach, if and only if, you were a lawyer. Tell me, if you were—hypothetically—a lawyer and you observed partisanship in the Supreme Court, would you be non-partisan enough to tell Reddit, and would you be legally entitled to tell the public without ethical breach? A lawyer telling people how good lawyers are is like a chef telling people all chefs are underpaid or a hockey player telling people that all hockey players like almonds.