Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 27, 2009 Report Posted December 27, 2009 Being the official opposition is as close to forming a government as you get. Period. The bailed out of the Reform movement because the got greedy. They joined the with the Conservatives because they wanted power. They got it after stabbing several members in the back. Much the same as McKay did to win his own party. There are lots of skeletons in the closets of these folks. Quote
Smallc Posted December 27, 2009 Report Posted December 27, 2009 Being the official opposition is as close to forming a government as you get. No, you can actually form the government, as the LPC, the PCP, and the CPC have done....Reform didn't do that and probably never would have. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 27, 2009 Report Posted December 27, 2009 No, you can actually form the government, as the LPC, the PCP, and the CPC have done....Reform didn't do that and probably never would have. Really, well that is a little different from where you started this.... If people were really so dissatisfied, there would have been a Reform government. There wasn't - not even close. The Official Opposition IS as close to forming a government is as possible within the law on this land. So you can spin left or right or just do circles in one place if that is what makes you happy, just as long as you realize that you are wrong. People were so disenfranchised with with the Mulroney government that they left just two of them in the House of Commons. The citizens can and do come very close sometimes without actually getting what they really want. Reform was a western version of the Bloc which was born out of Social Credit concepts. It was a regional party that outgrew its own britches. Quote
Smallc Posted December 27, 2009 Report Posted December 27, 2009 It was a regional party that would never form government...until it joined with the PCs and became a real alternative. Canadians aren't ideologues or partisans for the most part.....they want centrist government, and so that's what they get. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 27, 2009 Report Posted December 27, 2009 It was a regional party that would never form government...until it joined with the PCs and became a real alternative. Canadians aren't ideologues or partisans for the most part.....they want centrist government, and so that's what they get. You see the CPC as centrist? I see it as right wing..... It is my hope that citizens shift a little toward idealism in their thinking soon. I believe we can do better than what we have. I think the world is changing and we need to change with it. Quote
Smallc Posted December 27, 2009 Report Posted December 27, 2009 (edited) If the CPC is right wing, it isn't governing much like it is. I think switching to idealism would be a mistake. We can't let the perfect become the enemy of the good, and we have it really good. Edited December 27, 2009 by Smallc Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 27, 2009 Report Posted December 27, 2009 If the CPC is right wing, it isn't governing much like it is. I think switching to idealism would be a mistake. We can't let the perfect become the enemy of the good, and we have it really good. It is in a minority position, so it governs with the consent of the House. Given the ability to govern as they would prefer it would be much more evident. Idealism is what we need right now, not in terms of government but in terms of a way of thinking by citizens. The rule of apathy that grips the public must be changed into something more constructive and useful to society as a whole. Quote
Argus Posted December 28, 2009 Author Report Posted December 28, 2009 Yes, but we determine that at the lawmaking end. We can't be judge, jury, and executioner. There has to be a point somewhere that is a check on the will of the people. The people can't simply do whatever they want. Okay, so we determined at the lawmaking end, that a given crime, depending on severity, should be punished by between 1-10 years in prison. Then we find the judges reluctant to give out more than 1 year, regardless of the severity. What do we do then? We can't fire the judges. So we either put in mandatory minimums, which will inevitably lead to injustice, or we find a way to put pressure on the judges to render sentences which are in accordance with society's belief in fundamental justice. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 28, 2009 Author Report Posted December 28, 2009 Parliament can change laws if they don't like what judges say. Judges cannot simply make new laws....there has to be something wrong with the law if they decide that it needs to be changed. Judges can choose to make laws by interpreting, or re-interpreting legislation in any way they want. As I pointed out in an earlier post. The courts decided to add gays to the Charter despite the fact the authors of the Charter did not want them included. Then they used their own addition to overwrite the marriage laws. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 28, 2009 Author Report Posted December 28, 2009 Yes, that's why Reform was what amounts to an utter failure. If people were really so dissatisfied, there would have been a Reform government. There wasn't - not even close. They were hardly an utter failure. Even as opposition they forced the government to move rightward on a number of issues. But that's not the point. The point was that there were a lot of political beliefs and wants which anywhere from 40%-75% of the population held which were completely ignored by the political elites. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 28, 2009 Author Report Posted December 28, 2009 It was a regional party that would never form government...until it joined with the PCs and became a real alternative. Canadians aren't ideologues or partisans for the most part.....they want centrist government, and so that's what they get. The Reform Party weren't ideologues initially. They were a grass roots populist party representing the common beliefs of an awful lot of people. It's hard to say how they would have fared had they stuck to it, had they a more charismatic leader, and had the national media not been so completely united in slandering and libelling them at every possible opportunity. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 28, 2009 Report Posted December 28, 2009 The Reform Party weren't ideologues initially. They were a grass roots populist party representing the common beliefs of an awful lot of people. It's hard to say how they would have fared had they stuck to it, had they a more charismatic leader, and had the national media not been so completely united in slandering and libelling them at every possible opportunity. It was a one shot deal that failed to pan out. Western Canadians are looking once again for their answers. Quote
g_bambino Posted December 29, 2009 Report Posted December 29, 2009 [W]e either put in mandatory minimums, which will inevitably lead to injustice, or we find a way to put pressure on the judges to render sentences which are in accordance with society's belief in fundamental justice. What on earth is "society's belief in fundamental justice"? Again with the talk as though society is a monolithic and unchanging lump of identical automatons, when, obviously, it is not. What the majority of society believes changes like the winds, trends in political thinking come and go relatively quickly. It is exactly those tides that smallc rightly says the system of justice should be elevated above; obviously it cannot be completely immune to the ebb and flow of public opinion, but it is affected more by slow shifts over long periods of time; decades rather than years. In the spirit of the holidays, I noted a part in Miracle on 34th Street wherein a judge is pressured to render a certain ruling, and what is the threat held against him? His re-election. We don't need ballot boxes added to our courts. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 29, 2009 Report Posted December 29, 2009 What on earth is "society's belief in fundamental justice"? Again with the talk as though society is a monolithic and unchanging lump of identical automatons, when, obviously, it is not. What the majority of society believes changes like the winds, trends in political thinking come and go relatively quickly. It is exactly those tides that smallc rightly says the system of justice should be elevated above; obviously it cannot be completely immune to the ebb and flow of public opinion, but it is affected more by slow shifts over long periods of time; decades rather than years. In the spirit of the holidays, I noted a part in Miracle on 34th Street wherein a judge is pressured to render a certain ruling, and what is the threat held against him? His re-election. We don't need ballot boxes added to our courts. You seem to be confusing Hollywood with reality. Quote
Wilber Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 What on earth is "society's belief in fundamental justice"? What makes a judges idea of justice better than society's? Who do judges represent if not society? If judges do not apply society's laws as society would wish, what does society do about it? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
g_bambino Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 You seem to be confusing Hollywood with reality. Nice evasion! Quote
g_bambino Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 What makes a judges idea of justice better than society's? Who do judges represent if not society? If judges do not apply society's laws as society would wish, what does society do about it? Judges represent the Queen on the Bench, metting out justice on her behalf. The rest of your words illustrate that you didn't read my post properly. Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Nice evasion! It was not really an evasion, just an observation. Equating the movie with real life is a bit of a stretch. I do however appreciate your approach to the problem and must say I find no fault in it. That said, I will suggest that it is you who are evading the problem by simply ignoring the fact that the judges are accountable to nobody besides other judges. The people have no means of reproaching these unelected people, and our elected representatives have no way of reproaching these judges either. While they are not above the law, they do have the privilege of judging their own, something the rest of us cannot do. Quote
g_bambino Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 It was not really an evasion, just an observation. Equating the movie with real life is a bit of a stretch. I do however appreciate your approach to the problem and must say I find no fault in it. That said, I will suggest that it is you who are evading the problem by simply ignoring the fact that the judges are accountable to nobody besides other judges. While they are not above the law, they do have the privilege of judging their own, something the rest of us cannot do. It was just a small anecdote that pertained both to the topic and to the time of year; it wasn't meant to be indisputable proof of my assertions, though fiction often has factual elements, and it was evidently common enough knowledge amongst Americans in the 1930s that their judges needed to consider re-election when rendering judgement. Anyway, I see no issue with legal bodies governing their own members; I thought I'd made that obvious already. Court systems must inherently have their own self-preservation in mind, and judges' rulings are freely accessible to the public, studied, and even challenged. Therefore, putting aside the question of what would motivate them to even bother trying, it would be extremely difficult for a legal body to cover up the actions of an inept judge. Judges, therefore, are accountable to the wider public, only in a more subtle way than via a directly politicising ballot. Quote
Wilber Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 It was just a small anecdote that pertained both to the topic and to the time of year; it wasn't meant to be indisputable proof of my assertions, though fiction often has factual elements, and it was evidently common enough knowledge amongst Americans in the 1930s that their judges needed to consider re-election when rendering judgement. Anyway, I see no issue with legal bodies governing their own members; I thought I'd made that obvious already. Court systems must inherently have their own self-preservation in mind, and judges' rulings are freely accessible to the public, studied, and even challenged. Therefore, putting aside the question of what would motivate them to even bother trying, it would be extremely difficult for a legal body to cover up the actions of an inept judge. Judges, therefore, are accountable to the wider public, only in a more subtle way than via a directly politicising ballot. Challenged by who? The point is that judges are only accountable to other judges. How can their self preservation be threatened if they are only accountable to each other? They may not be able to cover up the actions of an inept judge but they aren't bound to do anything about him either. This thread started with an article about how judges were going to do an end around on government in order to avoid implementing its demands, so it seems those judges at least could give a rats ass about politicizing a ballot or accountability to the public. In fact your whole premise is based on them being above such things. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
g_bambino Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) Challenged by who? Litigants, lawyers, and judges. [c/e] Edited December 30, 2009 by g_bambino Quote
Wilber Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Litigants, lawyers, and judges. [c/e] Exactly, as litigants can only challenge through lawyers, they are only accountable to other lawyers. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
g_bambino Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Exactly, as litigants can only challenge through lawyers, they are only accountable to other lawyers. As I said, mostly, but not only. I also said why I thought that's fine. Do you read what people write? Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 As I said, mostly, but not only. I also said why I thought that's fine. Do you read what people write? Which illustrates why the system needs reforms doesn't it? Quote
g_bambino Posted December 30, 2009 Report Posted December 30, 2009 Which illustrates why the system needs reforms doesn't it? No, it doesn't. It illustrates my opinion and that Wiber doesn't bother to read it. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.