Ontario court rules mandatory minimum sentence unconstitutional in gun

[WWWTT]

Again, I’m sorry you don’t feel involved in the forum as is…….Perhaps others find chiding of people’s opinions and adding little, other than threats to contact moderators, none too appealing.

No need to worry I'm here to remind you that this is a public forum.

Aswell once again you seem to dislike the contributions I make,ever thought maybe its you?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Are you suggesting all the above Ministers are corrupt? What with them being lawyers and all, I’d think you’d have something to back up said claim………

Thats not what he said.

He said the cpc was corrupt and never trust a lawyer.

Good sound advise!

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

all mandatory minimums will do is place more accountability on Judges

When you take decision-making powers away from judges, you don't make them more accountable.

[Argus]

Thats not what he said.

He said the cpc was corrupt and never trust a lawyer.

Good sound advise!

I have no particular love of lawyers. However, the last time their participation in politics came up I seem to recall it was determined at that time that the CPC had a much lower number of lawyers in their caucus than the other parties, certainly lower than the Liberals.

Lawyers are a universal plague on politics.

And everything else.

[Argus]

When you take decision-making powers away from judges, you don't make them more accountable.

You could hardly make them less accountable...

[Guest Derek L]

Fantino has made the claim that the Canadian constitution does get in the way of law enforcement.

Which clearly proves he is biased!(cop is not a lawyer by the way)

You don’t have a citation I suppose? And, yes, I know Fantino was a “cop”, and as I pointed out, though not a lawyer, the position he obtained would have considerable knowledge on what the Crown could and couldn’t charge a person with.

And then there's Tony Clement.

My brother went to U of T faculty of law with him and according to my brother he was a weasel!

Well my brother’s, neighbour’s, sisters best friend’s babysitter’s uncle says different.

Aswell you failed to disclose what type of law these individuals practised,or probably do not know,and in doing so may be implying something different.

You changing the goalposts?

[Guest Derek L]

No need to worry I'm here to remind you that this is a public forum.

Aswell once again you seem to dislike the contributions I make,ever thought maybe its you?

WWWTT

Whomever said it wasn’t public?

[Guest Derek L]

When you take decision-making powers away from judges, you don't make them more accountable.

Well as has been already evident with the OP, the Judge/Crown is still not without “wiggle room”.

[cybercoma]

You could hardly make them less accountable...

Just because they're not accountable to the mob or your ideological fancies, doesn't mean they're not accountable to the principles of jurisprudence.

[cybercoma]

Well as has been already evident with the OP, the Judge/Crown is still not without “wiggle room”.

Only in the narrowest sense. This case can be appealed to the Supreme Court and subsequently over-ruled.

[Guest Derek L]

Only in the narrowest sense. This case can be appealed to the Supreme Court and subsequently over-ruled.

As will future cases, with the net result being Government will be divorced from the direct legal process…….If the courts let a stinker go by, the proverbial torches and pitchforks will be directed towards those that laid the charges and decided the sentences.

[cybercoma]

As will future cases, with the net result being Government will be divorced from the direct legal process

As they should be when they pass laws that are unconstitutional.

[Argus]

Just because they're not accountable to the mob or your ideological fancies, doesn't mean they're not accountable to the principles of jurisprudence.

They're not accountable to anyone or anything. They can literally give any opinion they want to on any matter before them. Appoint enough lawyers with a particular mindset to the court and it'll find what you want it to find. Mindset is all. That's why things which were once thought as constitutional are now thought as no longer constitutional. Change the makeup of the court and you change its interpretation of the Constitution.

God knows the Americans know that well enough. The Republicans have been trying to appoint enough hard assed conservatives to the SC for decades in order to get Roe V Wade overturned.

[Guest Derek L]

As they should be when they pass laws that are unconstitutional.

Indeed, As I’ve stated, the majority of the Crime Bill is purely optical………..Canadians aren’t going to be thrown into concentration camps, nor would there be roving gangs ala Mad Max if we didn’t pass it……It’s a political move, that’s effectiveness is namely political (as opposed to practical) in appealing to the base…….Much like the LGR was to the Liberals.

[Argus]

Indeed, As I’ve stated, the majority of the Crime Bill is purely optical………..

I don't think the removal of 2 for 1 or 3 for one sentence reductions is optical, nor is the ability of judges to sentence to consecutive terms instead of concurrent. The elimination of mandatory supervision is also of note.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Argus

[WWWTT]

You don’t have a citation I suppose? And, yes, I know Fantino was a “cop”, and as I pointed out, though not a lawyer, the position he obtained would have considerable knowledge on what the Crown could and couldn’t charge a person with.

I'm sorry but I do not have the link for this one.He made the comment on CBC or CTV soon after he won(maybe 2-3 months) his first run for the federal conservatives.Aswell the comment he made about the constitution getting in the way is typical of many cops.

And what does being able to charge someone have to do with upholding the constitution rights of individuals?

Is that not what this thread is about?Constitutional rights?

Nobody here believes for one second that any cop or crown attorney in Canada is going to stand up for someones constitutional rights!

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

They're not accountable to anyone or anything. They can literally give any opinion they want to on any matter before them. Appoint enough lawyers with a particular mindset to the court and it'll find what you want it to find. Mindset is all. That's why things which were once thought as constitutional are now thought as no longer constitutional. Change the makeup of the court and you change its interpretation of the Constitution.

God knows the Americans know that well enough. The Republicans have been trying to appoint enough hard assed conservatives to the SC for decades in order to get Roe V Wade overturned.

You seem to be really unfamiliar with judicial reasoning and the debates around legal philosophies, particular the work of Dworkin. Judges cannot just makeup whatever the heck they want. We have an entire system that ensures decisions are fair and just. If something is challenged all the way up to the SCC, there are 9 judges that sit on it. A single judge cannot import his/her bias into the judicial reasoning and create some new wildly divergent precedent. Moreover, decisions by the SCC are not necessarily binding. There has to be a clear majority decision for the government to be required to follow its ruling and even then the notwithstanding clause could be used.

[Guest Derek L]

I don't think the removal of 2 for 1 or 3 for one sentence reductions is optical, nor is the ability of judges to sentence to consecutive terms instead of concurrent. The elimination of mandatory supervision is also of note.

In a sense though, that will ultimately be up to the Crown and judges………they could choose to drop/reduce the charges they lay on a person in response to this legislation……..As the crux of my point, it puts the ball in the court (pun intended) of the Crown/Judges.

[WWWTT]

You seem to be really unfamiliar with judicial reasoning and the debates around legal philosophies, particular the work of Dworkin. Judges cannot just makeup whatever the heck they want. We have an entire system that ensures decisions are fair and just. If something is challenged all the way up to the SCC, there are 9 judges that sit on it. A single judge cannot import his/her bias into the judicial reasoning and create some new wildly divergent precedent. Moreover, decisions by the SCC are not necessarily binding. There has to be a clear majority decision for the government to be required to follow its ruling and even then the notwithstanding clause could be used.

I believe Argus is correct.

Judges do have a sence of superiority/arogance and can act in unaccountable manner.

This is obviously the greatest draw back with our life time/untouchable appointment procedure of judges.

However it is in my opinion that our appointment system still has greater advantages that outway the disadvantages.

WWWTT

[Argus]

You seem to be really unfamiliar with judicial reasoning and the debates around legal philosophies, particular the work of Dworkin. Judges cannot just makeup whatever the heck they want.

Every case which comes before the Supreme Court has to have a sound, legal basis in argument on BOTH sides in order to make it that far, right? Therefore, there can be a sound legal basis for finding one way or the other. That's the case with most legal arguments. So a judge or a group of judges has all the justification he or she needs to jump one way or the other. And to repeat, you can stack the court with extremely liberal or extremely conservative judges and that WILL affect what their 'legal wisdom' tells them is or is not Constitutional.

Therefore, what is or is not Constitutional is simply a matter of the ideological biases and prejudices of the judges involved.

[Smallc]

Of course it will play into things, but the justifications and the swings aren't even close to as wild as you're trying to make out.

[dre]

Every case which comes before the Supreme Court has to have a sound, legal basis in argument on BOTH sides in order to make it that far, right? Therefore, there can be a sound legal basis for finding one way or the other. That's the case with most legal arguments. So a judge or a group of judges has all the justification he or she needs to jump one way or the other. And to repeat, you can stack the court with extremely liberal or extremely conservative judges and that WILL affect what their 'legal wisdom' tells them is or is not Constitutional.

Therefore, what is or is not Constitutional is simply a matter of the ideological biases and prejudices of the judges involved.

And to repeat, you can stack the court with extremely liberal or extremely conservative judges

Not without winning elections you cant. Elections matter.

In any case you arent really saying anything, because you have no better ideas. We are a nation of laws made by the legislative branch and adjudicated on by the judicial branch. Theres flaws and mistakes, but in general the system works better than any apparent thing we could replace it with.

And in general we have WAY larger problems with our legislative branch than we do with the judiciary.