jacee Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 Would you like to give us examples of how Harper tried to uhm, "corrupt the court"?He expected them to do his bidding in spite of the Constitution, which he disdains.He has tried ... but failed so far. Quote
jacee Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 Harper complained about the Supreme Court in 1982? Are you sure about that?About the Constitution Act. Safe bet. He already hated Trudeau for the 1980 NEP. . Quote
Smallc Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 What Constitutional experts? Grad students still doing their articling? Because the Nadon appointment had near universal criticism from experts. I don't know, they claimed that, I can't verify it, that's why I said apparently. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 What Constitutional experts? Grad students still doing their articling? Because the Nadon appointment had near universal criticism from experts. A spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday afternoon the government is "genuinely surprised" by the decision. "Prior to Justice Nadon's appointment, the Department of Justice received legal advice from a former Supreme Court justice, which was reviewed and supported by another former Supreme Court justice, as well as a leading constitutional scholar. None of them saw any merit in the position taken by the court," Stephen Lecce said in a statement. Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/marc-nadon-appointment-rejected-by-supreme-court-1.2581388 Quote Back to Basics
On Guard for Thee Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 (edited) He may have been to a certain extent qualified, he just wasn't eligible under the constitution. And apparently Harper is going to try it again with his next appointment. More waste of time and money. Edited June 17, 2014 by On Guard for Thee Quote
Smallc Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 Former justices thought he was. That's the point of the paragraph, not whether or not he was qualified. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 Former justices thought he was. That's the point of the paragraph, not whether or not he was qualified. Current justices thought otherwise, and they are the ones who make those decisions. Had he have been a current member of the Quebec bar, things would likely have turned out different. Quote
Smallc Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 Which is fine, but it seems there isn't consensus of opinion. Quote
Bob Macadoo Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 Former justices thought he was. That's the point of the paragraph, not whether or not he was qualified. Opinions from private enterprise can be privately purchased. Just depends on the purchasing requirements. Quote
Argus Posted June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 most of it? Well... there's the "elimination of credit for pre‑sentence jailing"... that's one I'll give you. Care to relate the rest of your "most"? I can think of senate reform, the Nadon appointment, the prostitution ruling... what's the rest of your most? There was also, this year, the Insite ruling, bizarrely stating the government has to allow junkies to shoot up in peace. Not that long past was also the minimum sentence on gun posession ruling, which the courts have been voiding, as well as the financial penalties criminals are supposed to be paying, which the courts are also ignoring. There's also the Omar Khadr ruling, and the ruling on warrants to enter buildings other than dwellings, and the one preventing detectives from wearing a wire when making drug buys and using that evidence in court. as for your "the SC's innovative and unique interpretations of the law", is that of the law... or the constitution? as for your claim I "sneakweasled" out of your "the left" comment, that's quite the broad statement you're making, hey? And yet, you still haven't addressed it. In any case, I will then note you sneakweasled out of my comment that Harper Conservatives can't seem to be bothered to utilize it's vast (government supplied legal assests) to presume to validate it's proposals with the constitution in mind... before pushing out it's proposals. What makes you think it didn't? What makes you think they simply had a different legal opinion? In the Nadon case they even got an outside consult from a former Supreme Court justice (Ian Binnie), whose opinion was it was fine to appoint someone from the federal court. Former SC justice John Major has also come out and questioned the ruling, saying that in his opnion there was no reason a federal court judge from Quebec could not be appointed to the SC. As for the Senate reform proposal, that was, in fact, asking the court before they even initiated any changes. 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 June 17, 2014 Report Posted June 17, 2014 Opinions from private enterprise can be privately purchased. Just depends on the purchasing requirements. So you're saying SC judges are corrupt and their opinions are for sale? 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
jacee Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 So you're saying SC judges are corrupt and their opinions are for sale?I believe he's talking about FORMER SC judges. . Quote
Argus Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 I believe he's talking about FORMER SC judges. . So they're honest people until they have to resign due to age, then they become corrupt? I always look for motivation. I see no motive for an ex-Supreme Court judge to tell a client whatever it is he wants to hear. All the guy has is his reputation, and if he starts writing opinions that are garbage that'll disapear real quick. I also see no motivation in a client, be it the government, or anyone else, to pay a lawyer for an opinion which is wrong and won't stand up in court. And while they paid Binney for his assessment, they didn't pay Major for his. So in other words, you have at least 2 former SC judges, and probably a whole lot of other lawyers, from what I've read, who find this decision quite surprising. 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
Bob Macadoo Posted June 18, 2014 Report Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) I believe he's talking about FORMER SC judges. . Has nothing to do with corrupt.....they're lawyers. If the terms of their contract are tailored to a finding......surprise you get the finding you want. Hence polls, skewed studies, etc. Private enterprise at its pinnacle.You really can't understand why they'd use taxpayer money to get a false answer only to send out private fundraising requests the day after? Hmmmm partisan fraud much? Edited June 18, 2014 by Bob Macadoo Quote
jacee Posted July 27, 2014 Report Posted July 27, 2014 (edited) http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2717774 The Canada Revenue Agency has told a well-known charity that it can no longer try to prevent poverty around the world if it wants to keep its charitable status for tax purposes. It can only alleviate poverty because preventing poverty might benefit people who are not already poor. ... Oxfam Canada was singled out for criticism earlier this year by Employment Minister Jason Kenney over the group's opposition to Israeli settlements in the West Bank. And in July last year, Oxfam Canada signed a joint letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, taking issue with reports that government officials had been asked to compile "friend and enemy stakeholder" lists to brief new ministers after the summer cabinet shuffle. Toe the government line ... or get harassed by Revenue Canada. . . Edited July 27, 2014 by jacee Quote
Scotty Posted July 27, 2014 Report Posted July 27, 2014 Toe the government line ... or get harassed by Revenue Canada. Political activity is not compatible with charitable work for which the Canadian taxpayer ultimately foots the bill. If you want to lobby or agitate for some kind of change do it on your own dime, not on mine. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
jacee Posted July 27, 2014 Report Posted July 27, 2014 (edited) Political activity is not compatible with charitable work for which the Canadian taxpayer ultimately foots the bill. If you want to lobby or agitate for some kind of change do it on your own dime, not on mine. Harper should spend our dimes more wisely than in auditing and harassing charities that speak up about injustices. http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2717774 Last week, the NDP called for a independent probe into the current wave of political-activity audits, overseen by a retired judge or even a former CRA official, to determine whether the [Canada Revenue] agency was itself becoming a political tool of the government to silence critics. Edited July 27, 2014 by jacee Quote
scribblet Posted July 27, 2014 Report Posted July 27, 2014 To the question in the first post: No, there is no reason for him to resign. Quote Hey Ho - Ontario Liberals Have to Go - Fight Wynne - save our province
On Guard for Thee Posted July 28, 2014 Report Posted July 28, 2014 To the question in the first post: No, there is no reason for him to resign. Contempt of Parliament isn't a reason to resign? Hello. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 28, 2014 Report Posted July 28, 2014 Political activity is not compatible with charitable work for which the Canadian taxpayer ultimately foots the bill. If you want to lobby or agitate for some kind of change do it on your own dime, not on mine. Harper is using your dime to fund anti gay Christian operations in Uganda. Why not give him a call about that? Quote
cybercoma Posted July 28, 2014 Report Posted July 28, 2014 Contempt of Parliament isn't a reason to resign? Hello. That contempt finding was a meaningless witch hunt by the opposition. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 28, 2014 Report Posted July 28, 2014 That contempt finding was a meaningless witch hunt by the opposition. No it was not. It was returned to the speaker by an all party committee. Do your homework before you blow steam. Quote
cybercoma Posted July 28, 2014 Report Posted July 28, 2014 That "all party" coalition was dominated by the enemies of the Canadian Right. It was a kangaroo court. A meaningless bit of posturing. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 28, 2014 Report Posted July 28, 2014 That "all party" coalition was dominated by the enemies of the Canadian Right. It was a kangaroo court. A meaningless bit of posturing. It's called a commitee. All governments have them regardless of stripe. 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.