Is Stephen Harper Encouraging Judicial Activism?

[jacee]

You mean like Jean Chretien tried to have the chairman of the Business Development Bank of Canada arrested for trying to call in a loan to Chretien's ex-con friend?

Sorry. Couldnt resist.

Ya ... like that.

What's to "resist"? (I think I've been clear that I believe the Cons and Libs have both been corrupted by their big money funders beyond redemption.)

I do? Are you under the illusion that sort of thing happened prior to the charter?

Do you think habeas corpus is a term invented by the charter?

Butbutbut ... you don't trust the courts/judges, remember?

'Some lawyer in a black robe' etc., and you want politicians to protect our rights instead ... some of whom may not be of the party of your choice, and may not be interested in you at all ... unless you make a whopping donation to their coffers.

Individual rights in Canada were pretty nebulous prior to the Charter, 'implied' but often overriden by other laws and the courts.

Are you now saying you trust judges to interpret and apply those unwritten rights, but not the written ones in the Charter?

Makes no sense to me.

Edited April 20, 2012 by jacee

[Tilter]

This is false!

First off the government can not create any law that they may seem is fashionable or popular and expect judges to rubber stamp them.

When many laws are created they must be able to stand up in a court of law against many challenges against its legitimacy.

Are you suggesting that we throw out our judicial system because you disagree with the findings of a few judges?

WWWTT

First off the government can not create any law that they may seem is fashionable or popular.

Yes they can

When many laws are created they must be able to stand up in a court of law against many challenges against its legitimacy.

Should read

"When many any law is created it must be able to stand up in a court of Appeal against many any challenge against its legitimacy.

Again--- judges are not there to interpret the law they are there to enforce it.

[cybercoma]

Tilter, you're making a fool of yourself. It is clear you have no clue what the Constitution is and that's really sad. What's even sadder is watching you argue about something you're so clearly clueless about.

[Argus]

Butbutbut ... you don't trust the courts/judges, remember?

I don't trust judges making laws. I don't trust judges to be supreme over elected representatives.

'Some lawyer in a black robe' etc., and you want politicians to protect our rights instead

A politician will generally do with the law what Canadians want done with the law, not because the politician is smarter or wiser than a judge but because the politician knows Canadians will kick his ass if he doesn't. A judge has no such concerns. A judge can do whatever he wants without regard to the welfare of society or what society thinks of his decisions.

Individual rights in Canada were pretty nebulous prior to the Charter, 'implied' but often overriden by other laws and the courts.

We had all the required rights of any other free, western democratic state. And if individual rights were on rare occasions overriden by the welfare of the state that was the decision of the politicians responding to the public interest (because it was in THEIR interest to do so)

Are you now saying you trust judges to interpret and apply those unwritten rights, but not the written ones in the Charter?

Prior to the Charter Parliament was the Supreme Court, and had the final say. No it is faceless black robed people who were never elected, whose decisions cannot be challenged, and who cannot be removed save by age or death.

[eyeball]

I don't trust judges making laws. I don't trust judges to be supreme over elected representatives.

And they're not, so what are you really complaining about?

A politician will generally do with the law what Canadians want done with the law, not because the politician is smarter or wiser than a judge but because the politician knows Canadians will kick his ass if he doesn't.

A lot of politicians will also inflame and exploit a mob's outrage during election campaigns and many will let themselves be swept along and yield to it.

A judge has no such concerns. A judge can do whatever he wants without regard to the welfare of society or what society thinks of his decisions.

Well, I doubt very much if they disregard the welfare of society but thank the stars they disregard the politicians on occasion.

We had all the required rights of any other free, western democratic state. And if individual rights were on rare occasions overriden by the welfare of the state that was the decision of the politicians responding to the public interest (because it was in THEIR interest to do so)

Well that's fine and dandy on rare occasions but that's no excuse to not ensure that when they do they do so according to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Supreme Court.

Prior to the Charter Parliament was the Supreme Court, and had the final say. No it is faceless black robed people who were never elected, whose decisions cannot be challenged, and who cannot be removed save by age or death.

It's the fact they're beyond the reach of the angry mob you imagine is behind you or your representative that really bugs you isn't it?

[g_bambino]

I don't trust judges making laws...

Prior to the Charter Parliament was the Supreme Court, and had the final say. No it is faceless black robed people who were never elected, whose decisions cannot be challenged, and who cannot be removed save by age or death.

I don't know what world you're living in and I don't want to live in the world you want to. You seem to not understand how things currently work, have invented a deliberately self-frightening pseudo-reality, and concluded, within the parameters of your fetish for unbridled populism, that the solution is to turn judges into politicians and model Canadians' final court of appeal on the High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I. Mob justice; no thanks.

[ed.: -]

Edited April 22, 2012 by g_bambino

[dre]

I don't trust judges making laws...

Prior to the Charter Parliament was the Supreme Court, and had the final say. No it is faceless black robed people who were never elected, whose decisions cannot be challenged, and who cannot be removed save by age or death.

No even before the charter judges had to reconcile laws with thousands of other laws going all the way back to british commonlaw.

[dre]

Yes they can

Should read

Again--- judges are not there to interpret the law they are there to enforce it.

Amazing.... the lack of even rudimentary fundamental knowledge of the country you live in.

I rejected an idea here a while back to force native born Canadians to take some kind of citizenship test, but youre certainly a good argument for that.