Insite Ruling poses danger on a number of fronts

[Guest American Woman]

Impossible. Words are ambiguous and require interpretation. When a law says, "no motorized vehicles in the park" does that mean any vehicle with a motor? How about an electric golf cart? What about an electric wheel chair? How about riding lawn-mowers from maintenance crews? Interpretation is always necessary.

Words are ambiguous and require interpretation.

Yeah, they are! That's what I've been telling you all along.

Interpretation is always necessary.

Yep. That it is. Good to see you finally get it.

[g_bambino]

Realistically, of course, there are no tests for wisdom or brains for judges.s I recall, Paul Martin appointed two of those judges with only one criteria in mind: they were both active gay rights supporters. If they had a single brain cell between them it wasn't on the documentation which appointed them because he really didn't care.

You lack understanding of the selection process for Supreme Court justices.

Are you really under the illusion judges don't have an ideology? Come on.

And you are under the illusion that all nine justices of the Supreme Court share the same ideology? Come on, indeed.

[Bob]

I think this new thread is a good place for me to copy and paste a couple of fantastic posts I made in the other thread about the SCoC's recent ridiculous decision regarding Insite and the continuing expansion of "rights" in Canada through leftist judges.

The following three paragraphs are in direct response to Black Dog's jubilation over the SCoC's Insite ruling, stating that "science and reason had won the day". Remember, the law means nothing to leftists like Black Dog, what matters is the outcome. And in their view, the social outcome (labelled "harm reduction"), is less drug users dying from overdose as Vancouver now has a place where there is a dedicated team of medical specialists who exclusively intervene to save the lives of drug users who overdose. Also remember that we also needed "research" and "studies" to "prove" that less drug users would die from overdose if they had a team of dedicated overdose-paramedics, because of course in this modern age we need "specialists" and "experts" with sociology degrees to tell us the obvious.

I wanted to revisit this statement from Black Dog, as I think it is a perfect illustration of exactly what capricorn and I were discussing regarding judicial activism. Consider what Black Dog and his ilk are telling us when they justify the recent decision from the SCoC regarding Insite with "science and reason" being the justification. In other words, accurate application of the law to resolve disputes is irrelevant. Black Dog and his fellow leftists want a results based application of the law. What matters is the outcome of the judgement, and not the legitimacy of the judgement in accordance with the law as determined by our democratically-elected governments. Even if we accept the "harm-reduction" claims from the supporters of Insite's endeavours, is that a justification for radical application of and expansion of Section 7 rights of the CCRF?

To summarize, Black Dog and the other salivating leftists want judges to make decisions based on the social outcomes they desire, rather than for judges to accurately apply the law as it was created. Of course the hypocrisy is thick, as these very same leftists would be up in a rage if, say, a judge admitted illegally obtained evidence against a defendant in a trial - even though the outcome, which would be conviction of a guilty person of a crime, would be desirable.

Here's an interesting quote from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, he stated that in order to be a good judge, all that is required is to "read English intelligently".

Here are another few paragraphs explaining just what "judicial activism" really is. This is also a fantastic post of mine that intelligent readers will appreciate.

There's a great series of chapters here which I can't duplicate here from Thomas Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society" outlining and giving several historical examples of the phenomenon that is judicial activism. Even earlier than Brandeis (and Pound before him), we heard undefined rhetoric of "social justice" from Supreme Court Justices in the USA. This is frightening, where certain judges viewed themselves as the anointed ones whose role was now expanded into creating "social justice", rather than their real mandate: implementing the laws passed by the democratically elected government. Judicial activism is when a judge considers him or herself the arbiter of "social needs", without having any knowledge or expertise whatsoever regarding the issues upon which they would arbitrate. Brandeis himself stated that there was a growing trend among judges towards "a better appreciation by the courts of existing social needs". Since when are judges in a position to estimate "social needs"? They are there to interpret the law, and understanding "social needs" is far beyond their knowledge or expertise. This is about elites going above and beyond the the boundaries of their professional competence. Brandeis himself stated that he wanted the law to "reflect the will of the people", when of course the will of the people is expressed through elections.

"While there are many controversies over particular aspects of the law, the most fundamental controversy has long been over who should control the law and who should change the law. American intellectuals, since at least the middle of the 20th century, have overwhelmingly favoured expansion of the role of judges beyond that of applying laws created by others to themselves remaking the law to fit the times. Which is to say, making the law fit the prevailing vision of the times, the vision of the anointed intellectuals. Where the constitution of the United States is a barrier to this expanded role of judges, then judges have been urged to "interpret" the constitution as a set of values to be applied as judges choose, or update it as they think appropriate. Rather than as a set of specific instructions to be followed. That is what judicial activism means."

This is what we're talking about, and for you to write off "judicial activism" as meaningless rhetoric simply reveals your obliviousness of the history of judicial activism in either the Canadian or American contexts.

I want to add one more thing, and anyone can notice this if they take a few minutes to read the SCoC's decision online. Consider that the first two paragraphs of the decision say nothing about legalities - not mention of precedents, and no mention of application of the law. All that is stated is the court's perception of the "research" and "studies" relevant to "harm reduction" as a result of Insite's operations. Indeed, they even make reference to alleged "successes" of comparable operations in other countries. So here we have it, the SCoC is telling Canadians, in no uncertain terms, that they wish to legislate from the bench, and will render decisions based on what they view as the ideal social outcome(s) of their decision. Nevermind the fact that examining such issues is far beyond the knowledge or expertise of the courts, and is certainly exclusively the business of the government.

I'd like you folks to consider one other thing, and that is language used on the SCoC's welcome page. Check this out, "Courts offer a venue for the peaceful resolution of disputes, and for the reasoned and dispassionate discussion of our most pressing social issues." In other words, the courts are there, according to the courts, to address social issues and affect social change. I guess people like capricorn, Argus, and myself were all stupid enough to believe that the responsibility of the courts was to apply to law as it's been written. How wrong we were.

[Bob]

What a stupid article

The Supreme Court has to interject if the Government continues to ignore key evidence in making its policy decisions

That doesn't make these judges activist judges it just makes the Government assholes who only think with their ideology

despite mountains of evidence that show otherwise

The above post clearly reveals the leftist mindset. Black Dog included, with his "science and reason" win the day commentary. It's not "the law" that won the day, of course. What the above posts tells us about the leftist mindset is that they don't care about the law as it's been written, what they care about is that the courts render results-based judgements that yield the social outcomes they prefer. The law doesn't matter, what matters is that is applied in a manner which produces the social change they want. If the law mattered, then the leftists would be arguing that the SCoC's decision was a legally consistent position, rather than a decision based on "scientific evidence". Essentially what we have here is the SCoC venturing into new domain, where they are now the arbiters of social policy with respect to their interpretation of what the ideal social outcome(s) are of certain public projects based on how they interpret "science" and "research". Nevermind the fact that such issues are completely beyond the knowledge and expertise of SCoC justices, but it also completely beyond the scope of their responsibility - which is to apply the law as it's been written. As I've already said, applying social policy is the exclusive domain of the government.

I want to point out one other thing, "key evidence" and "mountains of evidence" really means one thing - that "research" and "studies" have proved on thing - that having dedicated medical technicians on hand who specialize in emergency drug overdose interventions yields "harm reduction". What is "harm reduction", you may ask? Well, "harm reduction" is the decreased likelihood of deaths resulting from overdose of drug users if they happen to overdose in the presence of these emergency medical technicians. Who'd thunk it? I guess those sociology graduates are good for something!

Edited October 12, 2011 by Bob

[cybercoma]

I want to add one more thing, and anyone can notice this if they take a few minutes to read the SCoC's decision online. Consider that the first two paragraphs of the decision say nothing about legalities - not mention of precedents, and no mention of application of the law. All that is stated is the court's perception of the "research" and "studies" relevant to "harm reduction" as a result of Insite's operations. Indeed, they even make reference to alleged "successes" of comparable operations in other countries. So here we have it, the SCoC is telling Canadians, in no uncertain terms, that they wish to legislate from the bench, and will render decisions based on what they view as the ideal social outcome(s) of their decision. Nevermind the fact that examining such issues is far beyond the knowledge or expertise of the courts, and is certainly exclusively the business of the government.

I'd like you folks to consider one other thing, and that is language used on the SCoC's welcome page. Check this out, "Courts offer a venue for the peaceful resolution of disputes, and for the reasoned and dispassionate discussion of our most pressing social issues." In other words, the courts are there, according to the courts, to address social issues and affect social change. I guess people like capricorn, Argus, and myself were all stupid enough to believe that the responsibility of the courts was to apply to law as it's been written. How wrong we were.

I'm not quite sure you understand what you're reading. It seems to me that you're reading into what the court is saying, rather than reading what they're actually saying. Can you explain how "reasoned and dispassionate" fit into your description of the courts as social activists? Moreover, I'm not sure how you could have possibly read the entire decision and understood it, if you're saying that they made their decision based on a "desired social outcome". They very clearly made the decision based on the Charter Rights of Canadians, as it applies to the CDSA, namely the exemption clauses in ss. 55 and 56. That's not at all manufacturing a desired social outcome. In fact, it is merely applying the laws as they have been written.

Edited October 12, 2011 by cybercoma

[Bob]

I'm not quite sure you understand what you're reading. It seems to me that you're reading into what the court is saying, rather than reading what they're actually saying. Can you explain how "reasoned and dispassionate" fit into your description of the courts as social activists? Moreover, I'm not sure how you could have possibly read the entire decision and understood it, if you're saying that they made their decision based on a "desired social outcome". They very clearly made the decision based on the Charter Rights of Canadians, as it applies to the CDSA, namely the exemption clauses in ss. 55 and 56. That's not at all manufacturing a desired social outcome. In fact, it is merely applying the laws as they have been written.

"Pressing social issues" aren't the business of the courts. Those are the business of the electorate. The business of the courts if to apply the law as established by the electorate. The business of the courts is to do one thing only - to apply the law as it's been written. Not to be a forum where we discuss "pressing social issues". The courts should be a place where we discuss legal issues, not social issues.

You clearly don't grasp the difference in the perspectives between the left and the right with respect to the role of the courts. The left, yourself included of course, want results-based judgements. The right has a much more constrained vision of the role of the courts - that their sole domain is the application of the law as it's been written. In our view, a good judge is a judge who should be able to make a decision that he or she is unhappy with on a personal level, while confident that he or she is accurately applying the law as it's been written.

The fact that the SCoC's opening two paragraphs of the recent Insite decision make no mention og legalities, and invoke the court's perceptions of scientific "evidence" and "research" of the social outcomes of Insite, as well as referencing perceptions of "success" of similar programs in other countries tells us everything we need to know about the SCoC's decision - that is was based on desirable outcomes and not the accurate application of Canadian law. The justices at the SCoC clearly view themselves as the anointed ones who are now the arbiters of what constitutes ideal social outcomes of public policy.

[guyser]

I'm not quite sure you understand what you're reading.

You can remove 'not quite' and replace it with 'positive you don't' as you pointed out the failings.

Edited October 12, 2011 by guyser

[g_bambino]

The business of the courts if to apply the law as established by the electorate.

Law in this country is established by parliament, Order-in-Council, and precedent. The Supreme Court, in this case, has applied the law.

[Bob]

Law in this country is established by parliament, Order-in-Council, and precedent. The Supreme Court, in this case, has applied the law.

If the SCoC was only "applying the law", then it wouldn't have invoked "evidence" of perceived desirable social outcomes, while referencing the "successes" of similar programs in foreign countries. This may be considered an application of the law to a deranged leftist, but in reality it is just a ridiculous expansion of the rights provisioned to Canadians under Section 7 of the CCRF. Put your ADD on hold and spend five minutes and go read the decision. Or, alternatively, pretend to know what actually happened and what is contained within the decision from the SCoC.

[Bob]

Law in this country is established by parliament, Order-in-Council, and precedent. The Supreme Court, in this case, has applied the law.

Well, I already mentioned that the law is established by the democratically-elected government about twenty times in this thread and the other thread. My mentioning of the electorate doesn't need correction from you in this instance. The electorate votes for, directly and indirectly, the people who compose the law. Happy with the clarification? Now you can go back to your corner and lurk waiting for the next opportunity you'll have to come out of the shadows and make an irrelevant "correction", while avoiding the thrust of the thread which is beyond your grasp.

[g_bambino]

Suppose the Supreme Court says that the law which bans, oh, let's say rape, is unconstitutional.

Why should I suppose such a stupid thing? It would never happen, since legalising rape would be counter to multiple sections of the Charter and the courts cannot declare a part of the constitution to be unconstitutional.

The law, basically, is whatever the SC wants it to be... Listening to experts and judging the value of a given law or policy is government's job.

You understand neither the role of the courts nor that of the government. Laws are made either by parliament (Acts of Parliament), the Cabinet (Orders-in-Council), or precedent (convention). The constitutionality of any of these isn't tested by the Cabinet, which would obviously create a conflict of interest; analysing the legality of various laws is the job of the courts. And courts frequently call upon expert witnesses to give evidence on which rulings can be based. It seems you'd rather go back to 4th century England, when kings were lawmaker and judge combined.

[Black Dog]

The courts should be a place where we discuss legal issues, not social issues.

Which is why the SCoC decision was on legal issues. Or do you feel the Charter is not law?

The fact that the SCoC's opening two paragraphs of the recent Insite decision make no mention og legalities, and invoke the court's perceptions of scientific "evidence" and "research" of the social outcomes of Insite, as well as referencing perceptions of "success" of similar programs in other countries tells us everything we need to know about the SCoC's decision...

No, it tells us you need to read more than two paragraphs of the decision.

[guyser]

...you'll have to come out of the shadows and make an irrelevant "correction", while avoiding the thrust of the thread which is beyond your grasp.

g bambino, The one poster who knows pretty much everything about the ways and means of parliament.

When you can tie his shoelaces maybe your opinion will matter, it wont of course .

[g_bambino]

Well, I already mentioned that the law is established by the democratically-elected government about twenty times in this thread and the other thread.

Yes, and you were wrong every time.

The electorate votes for, directly and indirectly, the people who compose the law. Happy with the clarification?

Partly. You still negelect the part of our legal system that's based on precedent and convention.

If the source of law were irrelevant to the subject, why did you raise it?

[Bob]

I'm not going to waste my time when you blatantly mischaracterize everything I said. I said nothing even remotely close the crap in the post above. Put your ADD on hold and read my earlier posts in this thread if you spare a fe minutes. What's being discussed here is the long-standing dispute between competing visions of the left and the right with respect to the role of the courts. If you don't understand the debate that is at the core of this thread, you're wasting everyone's time with your posts.

[g_bambino]

If the SCoC was only "applying the law", then it wouldn't have invoked "evidence" of perceived desirable social outcomes, while referencing the "successes" of similar programs in foreign countries.

You were unaware that it's been common practice for centuries for courts to use evidence in their rulings and cite precedent in other countries?

[g_bambino]

I'm not going to waste my time when you blatantly mischaracterize everything I said. I said nothing even remotely close the crap in the post above. Put your ADD on hold and read my earlier posts in this thread if you spare a fe minutes. What's being discussed here is the long-standing dispute between competing visions of the left and the right with respect to the role of the courts. If you don't understand the debate that is at the core of this thread, you're wasting everyone's time with your posts.

In other words: You've come to the realisation your rants were based on misunderstanding and ignorance. Good.

[Bob]

You were unaware that it's been common practice for centuries for courts to use evidence in their rulings and cite precedent in other countries?

Not to use "evidence" to support their perceptions of ideal social outcomes - in this case, "harm reduction". This is a new phenomenon we've seen in approximately the last half-century. Evidence in the prosecution of a crime is one thing, "scientific research" used to justify perceptions of ideal social outcomes is another. It's clear that you don't grasp the core debate that this thread is predicated on, which are the competing visions of the left and the right with respect to the role of the courts. Again, go read my posts, as they articulately outline these competing visions.

EDIT - In other words, you're comparing evidence that is used in a criminal trial to convict to "scientific research", basically sociological silliness, to support public policy. It's really quite telling that you can't discern the difference between, say, a bloody glove, and "sociological research" that is shaped to support a certain public policy endeavour by "proving" favourable outcomes (less drug users dying from overdose because they have dedicated emergency medical teams provided to them by the taxpayer).

Edited October 12, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

To Argus, this decision already has expanded judicial activism. Thankfully, simply terminating funding for Insite still seems like a possibility. What was denied here by the SCoC was simply the withdrawal of the provincial Minister of Health's termination of immunity from certain laws in the CSDA. That's fine, as things stand now, Insite can still be shut down.

Let's assume that shutting down Insite gets challenged on similar grounds, though. That would certainly set a ridiculous precedent.

[Smallc]

It's clear that you don't grasp the core debate that this thread is predicated on, which are the competing visions of the left and the right with respect to the role of the courts.

Maybe it would be easier to grasp if it weren't based on complete ignorance of the Canadian system of government, or Canadian (or Commonwealth) history.

[Black Dog]

To Argus, this decision already has expanded judicial activism. Thankfully, simply terminating funding for Insite still seems like a possibility.

Oh but you only care about the application of the law, right?

What a piece of shit you are.

[g_bambino]

Not to use "evidence" to support their perceptions of ideal social outcomes - in this case, "harm reduction".

And what evidence is there that the evidence supported the shared ideal social outcome of nine Supreme Court justices? Or, was it that the evidence affirmed that there was an observable, tangible reduction of risk to health and life of drug addicts by allowing them access to supervised injection sites, thereby making it counter to S.7 of the Charter for the federal Crown-in-Council to deny them that access? From reading the ruling, it seems to be the latter; it is full of references to the "life and security of the person". In fact, it flat out states "the morality of the activity the law regulates is irrelevant at the initial stage of determining whether the law engages a s. 7 right... While it is for the relevant governments to make criminal and health policy, when a policy is translated into law or state action, those laws and actions are subject to scrutiny under the Charter. The issue is not whether harm reduction or abstinence-based programmes are the best approach to resolving illegal drug use, but whether Canada has limited the rights of the claimants in a manner that does not comply with Charter."

[Bob]

Oh but you only care about the application of the law, right?

What a piece of shit you are.

I care about accurate application of the law, thank you very much. It's a foundational component upon which our society is built. If we have bad laws, we change them. Considering that Insite is a terrible expenditure of taxpayer money that causes much more harm than good, on balance, a moral government has an obligation to terminate this program. Ceasing funding is a moral, and legal, avenue towards achieving those ends.

Keep on cheering for "science and reason" to be the reasoning for SCoC judgements, rather than the actual law of the land. Results-based judicial activism is what you and the rest of the suicidal left want, and you got it. Like I already said in a previous post, the SCoC's very own welcome page informs us that the SCoC views itself as a forum where "pressing social issues" are to be discussed, in order to affect social change. They view themselves as the anointed ones whose mandate isn't simply applying the law as its been written, but to stretch the law through verbal virtuosity (a phrase borrowed from Thomas Sowell) towards achieving what they view as desirable social outcomes. Canadians, by and large, seem to be quite comfortable with this greatly expanded scope of responsibility for the courts - essentially granting unelected legal experts the authority to form public policy. Just make sure you don't get upset when they "apply" the law in a manner you disagree with, because that's what you're gambling with when you give such power to the SCoC.

[g_bambino]

Thankfully, simply terminating funding for Insite still seems like a possibility.

And here you're finally up front about what your issue is: The constitution doesn't allow for you to have your ideal social outcome to be implemented as easily as you'd like, and because the Supreme Court based its ruling on the constitution, rather than overriding it to suit your personal preference, the Supreme Court is a cabal of unelected leftards with no legitimacy.

[Black Dog]

I care about accurate application of the law, thank you very much. It's a foundational component upon which our society is built. If we have bad laws, we change them.

And where does the impetus to change a bad law come from?

Were it up to you, the U.S. would probably still have de jure segregation.

Considering that Insite is a terrible expenditure of taxpayer money that causes much more harm than good, on balance, a moral government has an obligation to terminate this program. Ceasing funding is a moral, and legal, avenue towards achieving those ends.

On what evidence?