Harper nominates Justice Thomas Cromwell

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has nominated Nova Scotia judge Thomas Cromwell to sit on the Supreme Court of Canada.

The move -- which bypasses an all-party selection committee just two days ahead of an election call -- will fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Justice Michel Bastarache.

Cromwell currently sits on the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

Harper said Cromwell's candidacy was "highly recommended by judges, lawyers and other Atlantic Canadians."

So much for the selection committee in the House of Commons being involved in selection. Another broken Harper promise.

Edited September 5, 2008 by jdobbin

[Ontario Loyalist]

Yup... the Dictator strikes again...

[Bryan]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

So much for the selection committee in the House of Commons being involved in selection. Another broken Harper promise.

So much for reading comprehension. Perhaps you missed this part of the article:

"the appointment will not be made until Cromwell faces an ad hoc all-party committee of the House of Commons."

He's just making his choice known. The key word here is NOMINATED, not appointed. The committee will be free to decline the nomination. They won't likely decline it, just as the GG won't likely decline the PMs requests for dissolution of parliament, but the committee still has the option to defer to the others on the list.

[jdobbin]

So much for reading comprehension. Perhaps you missed this part of the article:

"the appointment will not be made until Cromwell faces an ad hoc all-party committee of the House of Commons."

That is the review following the nomination.

Harper bypassed the selection committee by saying it wasn't working even though it was his own committee members who were helping to disrupt things.

The move -- which bypasses an all-party selection committee just two days ahead of an election call

He's just making his choice known. The key word here is NOMINATED, not appointed. The committee will be free to decline the nomination. They won't likely decline it, just as the GG won't likely decline the PMs requests for dissolution of parliament, but the committee still has the option to defer to the others on the list.

Once again, it wasn't this committee I was referring to.

[Wilber]

Even better if his first name was Oliver.

[cybercoma]

Can someone explain something for me?

Who appoints the selection committee?

[FTA Lawyer]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

So much for the selection committee in the House of Commons being involved in selection. Another broken Harper promise.

Nicolson said he was disappointed by the selection panel.

"Last month they didn't get anything done because the opposition had objections to the composition of the committee," he said.

"And this month, a couple days of teleconferences had to be cancelled because no members of the opposition were available. So we're moving forward on this."

Canadian Press

Two months of nothing...how many average Canadians can make puppies for two months and still expect to be taken seriously...let alone keep their job.

Good on Harper and Nicholson. By the way, can you find one person who says that this judge is a bad pick? He's a direct appointment to the Court of Appeal by Cretien and now Harper has not let bullshit get in the way of nominating him for the SCC. Seems like a completely non-partisan, merit based appointment.

Damn Harper and his hidden agenda!!!!!

FTA

[Smallc]

Canadian Press

Two months of nothing...how many average Canadians can make puppies for two months and still expect to be taken seriously...let alone keep their job.

Good on Harper and Nicholson. By the way, can you find one person who says that this judge is a bad pick? He's a direct appointment to the Court of Appeal by Cretien and now Harper has not let bullshit get in the way of nominating him for the SCC. Seems like a completely non-partisan, merit based appointment.

Damn Harper and his hidden agenda!!!!!

FTA

Its Harper and his promise breaking that we're more worried about.

[August1991]

He's just making his choice known. The key word here is NOMINATED, not appointed. The committee will be free to decline the nomination. They won't likely decline it, just as the GG won't likely decline the PMs requests for dissolution of parliament, but the committee still has the option to defer to the others on the list.

I'll trust your knowledge Bryan. I reckon that this is an election ploy of Harper.

My only other addition is that Cromwell from Nova Scotia replaces Bastarache (Acadien) from NB. Other than language, Bastarache was considered a common law justice even though he knew the Civil Code.

L'Acadie. What a country.

[Bryan]

Its Harper and his promise breaking that we're more worried about.

He didn't break a promise. He put the process in place for the opposition to be involved, and they deliberately sabotaged the process, so he's just giving them a kick in the butt to get it done.

If I tell you that I'll give you $20 to mow my lawn, and a week later you still haven't done it (so I just do it myself), don't come back to me and say I broke my promise to you.

Not only does the opposition have no leg to stand on to complain, this could easily be held up as an example of the disfunction that necessitated the dissolution of parliament.

[jdobbin]

Two months of nothing...how many average Canadians can make puppies for two months and still expect to be taken seriously...let alone keep their job.

Good on Harper and Nicholson. By the way, can you find one person who says that this judge is a bad pick? He's a direct appointment to the Court of Appeal by Cretien and now Harper has not let bullshit get in the way of nominating him for the SCC. Seems like a completely non-partisan, merit based appointment.

Damn Harper and his hidden agenda!!!!!

That two months of delay is as much to do with the PMO authorizing a 200 page book to codify how to make Parliament dysfunctional. I think we see clear that is Harper's agenda.

My personal opinion is that judges should be subject to a selection committee of Parliament or the ad hoc committee afterwards. I don't know why Harper thought it would work when he has had contempt for the committees all along.

I have no doubt that the judge is qualified. He should be appointed straight to the bench after the traditional oversight and recommendations. I have seen no evidence that Parliament is better at the job of selection or in oversight.

The only thing this shows is that this wasn't a good idea and Harper had to bypass Parliament in the end and will likely do it again unless he has a rubber stamp in committee.

[jdobbin]

He didn't break a promise. He put the process in place for the opposition to be involved, and they deliberately sabotaged the process, so he's just giving them a kick in the butt to get it done.

So the government had nothing to do with the delays? It is all the Opposition and the government has nothing to do with the delay committees at every level? What was that 200 page manual about then that the PMO put out to delay functions at the committee level about?

[jdobbin]

Who appoints the selection committee?

The electorate.

[Smallc]

He didn't break a promise. He put the process in place for the opposition to be involved, and they deliberately sabotaged the process, so he's just giving them a kick in the butt to get it done.

So because things don't go the way he likes, he can simply go around them. The real problem is, or course, that many of his ideas are stupid. There's a reason they haven't been done before, and its because they don't work under our system. Oh well, just add it to the growing list of lies.

[Bryan]

So because things don't go the way he likes, he can simply go around them. The real problem is, or course, that many of his ideas are stupid. There's a reason they haven't been done before, and its because they don't work under our system.

The idea is sound, it just needs a deadline. Tell the committee they can make the selection, but it must be done by a certain date and time, otherwise they'll take who he picks.

[jdobbin]

The idea is sound, it just needs a deadline. Tell the committee they can make the selection, but it must be done by a certain date and time, otherwise they'll take who he picks.

The idea is not sound. The politicization of the selection process and the review should be dropped. Harper should have used the past system which had delivered mostly excellent federal court judges.

[Bryan]

The idea is not sound. The politicization of the selection process and the review should be dropped. Harper should have used the past system which had delivered mostly excellent federal court judges.

The past system produced a lot of judges with really poor senses of judgement.

Personally, I'd much prefer to see them elected. The way it is now, there's no accountability for their actions.

[jdobbin]

The past system produced a lot of judges with really poor senses of judgement.

Personally, I'd much prefer to see them elected. The way it is now, there's no accountability for their actions.

Including Federal court judges? That doesn't even happen in the U.S.

And if they are elected, can they be on a party ticket?

[Bryan]

Including Federal court judges? That doesn't even happen in the U.S.

And if they are elected, can they be on a party ticket?

Especially federal court justices, that's where bad decisions make the most damage.

I don't think party affiliation should even be part of that process.

[Smallc]

Personally, I'd much prefer to see them elected. The way it is now, there's no accountability for their actions.

They are accountable...to the law and the bench, just the way it should be.

[cybercoma]

The electorate.

I don't recall seeing justice committee nominations on the federal ballot. That's like saying the electorate chooses the cabinet ministers. What I'd like to know is if the MPs on this committee are appointed by the PM or by some other process.

[cybercoma]

Especially federal court justices, that's where bad decisions make the most damage.

I don't think party affiliation should even be part of that process.

Nearly 50% of the voting public makes their choice based on party. To put a list of names on a ballot and ask the average joe on the street to choose a SCC Justice would not lead to great results. Frankly, I think that system would be the same as drawing names out of a hat.

I think maybe professionals in the field should make up a committee that selects the best person for the job, then if the PM would like to be a figurehead and sign off on it, he can.

Edited September 6, 2008 by cybercoma

[HisSelf]

The past system produced a lot of judges with really poor senses of judgement.

Personally, I'd much prefer to see them elected. The way it is now, there's no accountability for their actions.

Gee. Are you talking about Louise Arbour? Bora Laskin? What an amazing statement.

[jdobbin]

Especially federal court justices, that's where bad decisions make the most damage.

And the Supreme Court?

I don't think party affiliation should even be part of that process.

So you'd rather have party affiliations hidden?

[jdobbin]

I don't recall seeing justice committee nominations on the federal ballot. That's like saying the electorate chooses the cabinet ministers. What I'd like to know is if the MPs on this committee are appointed by the PM or by some other process.

They operate like every other committee.

You are saying the MPs should have another election by the public to be on the selection committee? I don't know what you are suggesting.