Another Harper Government Law Overturned

[cybercoma]

The constitution can be changed too but that does not make it a practical solution to deal with a court that far over stepping it bounds and interfering with administration issues.

Except it's not. It's operating exactly within its bounds.

[cybercoma]

You ain't seen nothin yet.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/former-conservative-public-safety-minister-vic-toews-named-to-manitoba-court/article17368609/#dashboard/follows/

Wow

You two remember that when you hold your noses and tick the box for your local CPC candidates. That choice could very well seal the deal for Supreme Court Justice Vic Toews.

[WWWTT]

Kinda makes you wish for the opportunity to vote on the appointment doesn't it? Or are Canadians too lazy to assume a greater responsibility for their governance? Yeah that must be it.

Ya that's it eyeball!

Blame Canadian's for the alleged democracy in this country!

WWWTT

[Smallc]

You two remember that when you hold your noses and tick the box for your local CPC candidates. That choice could very well seal the deal for Supreme Court Justice Vic Toews.

Give me a better choice.

[bleeding heart]

Well, since cybercoma is almost certainly not voting CPC, I think his "better choice" is implied, isn't it?

Edited April 15, 2014 by bleeding heart

[Smallc]

That's why I said to give me a better choice...it's not the same choice

[Argus]

Out-of-touch legal elites? You've got to be kidding. Harper appoints a judge for Québec that has absolutely no experience with the Civil Code and it's the "legal elites" that are out of touch? Just because you're skeptical of the educated and informed, doesn't mean you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel with your own comments.

A judge from Quebec with no experience with the Civil Code? I believe you have your facts in error.

[Argus]

You two remember that when you hold your noses and tick the box for your local CPC candidates. That choice could very well seal the deal for Supreme Court Justice Vic Toews.

You really think he'd be worse than Rosalie Abella?

[guyser]

A judge from Quebec with no experience with the Civil Code? I believe you have your facts in error.

He was refused because he worked the Federal Court and not a Quebec court.

[Bob Macadoo]

You really think he'd be worse than Rosalie Abella?

I should sure as shyte hope so...unless she said you're either with us or pedophiles......I'm pretty sure his statements will create an infinite filibuster to his appointment.

[eyeball]

So it should. It would be like appointing Stockwell Day as Minister of Science and Technology.

[TimG]

Just because you're skeptical of the educated and informed, doesn't mean you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel with your own comments.

It is a bit rich you lecturing me about being informed when your response shows you know nothing of this case. The entire case hinged on whether Nadon was currently a member of the Quebec bar. He was otherwise completely qualified. The problem is the judicial elite did not like him and they concocted completely a irrational judgement to give them an excuse to keep him off the bench.

Read the dissenting judgment:

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13544/index.do

All members of this Court agree that under s. 5 of the Act, both current and former members of a provincial bar of at least 10 years standing, and both current and former judges of a provincial superior court, are eligible for appointment to this Court. We part company, however, on whether s. 6 restricts the eligibility criteria, in the case of the three Quebec seats, to only current members of the Quebec bar and current judges of Quebec’s superior courts. My colleagues conclude that it does; I reach the opposite conclusion. In my respectful view, the same eligibility criteria in s. 5 apply to all appointees, including those chosen from Quebec institutions to fill a Quebec seat.

BTW: I generally give experts the benefit of the doubt - it is only after experts prove themselves to be motivated by things other than common sense do I start to criticize them. I used to have a lot of respect for the SCC - but no longer as the the completely inane judgement pile up.

Edited April 15, 2014 by TimG

[waldo]

He was otherwise completely qualified.

ya, ya... other than the appointment being ruled unconstitutional, he was "completely qualified"!!! Gee, what was it about his "qualifications" (or lack, therein) that would have them invalidated via the SCC ruling?

[guyser]

The entire case hinged on whether Nadon was currently a member of the Quebec bar. He was otherwise completely qualified.

So....he wasnt qualified. Thats what I said too !

The problem is the judicial elite did not like him and they concocted completely a irrational judgement to give them an excuse to keep him off the bench.

Is that in the judgement or just your opinion?

BTW: I generally give experts the benefit of the doubt - it is only after experts prove themselves to be motivated by things other than common sense do I start to criticize them. I used to have a lot of respect for the SCC - but no longer as the the completely inane judgement pile up.

Generally....riiiiight.

[waldo]

no worries, TimG! Vic Toews will clean house...

[Argus]

He was refused because he worked the Federal Court and not a Quebec court.

That wasn't the question. Do you honestly think a Francophone lawyer from Quebec has no experience in the Civil Code?

[waldo]

That wasn't the question. Do you honestly think a Francophone lawyer from Quebec has no experience in the Civil Code?

he was a former member of the Quebec bar... not a current member. Accordingly, one might suggest that 'non-current' experience level you speak of is suspect. Of course, Harper Conservatives thought they could simply bury a provision in the budget bill to switch a qualifying criteria from 'current member' to 'past member' of the Quebec bar... tailoring the way for their eventual naming of Nadon. Of course, per the SCC ruling, this Harper Conservative attempted re-write to the qualifications criteria was ruled unconstitutional by the SCC.

[Argus]

I should sure as shyte hope so...unless she said you're either with us or pedophiles......I'm pretty sure his statements will create an infinite filibuster to his appointment.

How is that more prejudicial than her long-term activism for gay rights, given she was specifically appointed as the court was going to hear an important case on -- gay rights.

[Argus]

he was a former member of the Quebec bar... not a current member. Accordingly, one might suggest that 'non-current' experience level you speak of is suspect. Of course, Harper Conservatives thought they could simply bury a provision in the budget bill to switch a qualifying criteria from 'current member' to 'past member' of the Quebec bar... tailoring the way for their eventual naming of Nadon. Of course, per the SCC ruling, this Harper Conservative attempted re-write to the qualifications criteria was ruled unconstitutional by the SCC.

Isn't writing and re-writing laws what governments traditionally DO?

As I understand it, this question was discussed, it was deemed okay by Justice, two outsiders, one a constitutional law expert and another a former SC judge were consulted and saw no issues with it. The opposition members on the selection committee didn't have any issues either. The SC decided the criteria which applied to judges from everywhere else in Canada did not apply to judges from Quebec. <shrug>

Edited April 16, 2014 by Argus

[waldo]

Isn't writing and re-writing laws what governments traditionally DO?

of course, in the fine tradition of burying changes in unrelated bills or broader omnibus bills!

As I understand it, this question was discussed, it was deemed okay by Justice, two outsiders, one a constitutional law expert and another a former SC judge were consulted and saw no issues with it. The opposition members on the selection committee didn't have any issues either. The SC decided the criteria which applied to judges from everywhere else in Canada did not apply to judges from Quebec. <shrug>

the SCC ruling seems clear... not sure how you (or the experts you speak to) could now, or before in pre-review, challenge the s.6 wording, or the SCC's interpretation of Nadon's criteria as measured against that wording.

[Bryan]

The SCC seems to have a passion for ruling "unconstitutional" things that are not stated in the constitution.

[Argus]

of course, in the fine tradition of burying changes in unrelated bills or broader omnibus bills!

the SCC ruling seems clear... not sure how you (or the experts you speak to) could now, or before in pre-review, challenge the s.6 wording, or the SCC's interpretation of Nadon's criteria as measured against that wording.

The ruling is clear, but the law certainly was not up until that point.

The question was based on:

"Three judges shall be appointed from among the judges of the Court of Appeal or of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec or from among the advocates of that province.”

It was a technical question. Most of us would say Nadon was a lawyer from Quebec. The question they spent all their time on was defining 'of'. They decided 'of' meant a lawyer presently in Quebec, presently practicing law in Quebec.

To quote Andrew Coyne, it sounds like a pretty flaky decision. Most of us would say Nadon was certainly a Lawyer from Quebec, which would be how we would define 'of' Quebec.

[On Guard for Thee]

Maybe look at it this way, even if you have been driving a car for decades, but you get stopped and your DL is not valid, you're not allowed to be on the road. Now would you expect the cop to just look the other way, or would you probably get a ticket and have to go get a new DL? Same idea.

[WWWTT]

Maybe look at it this way, even if you have been driving a car for decades, but you get stopped and your DL is not valid, you're not allowed to be on the road. Now would you expect the cop to just look the other way, or would you probably get a ticket and have to go get a new DL? Same idea.

What really kills me is that judges and lawyers are always going every single little detail making sure every I is dotted and T is crossed!

This isn't just some minor mix up either, did the conservatives really think that the judges on the SCC were going to overlook something this freekin huge?!??!?!?!

I can see a poster here making some errors in a comment, or someone at their job making some small mistakes that get corrected eventually. But when the government has staff numbers in the 100's if not 1000's and countless legal advisors with millions of dollars in their budgets consulting the government on everything, you've got to really question the competence of the conservatives!

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

Isn't writing and re-writing laws what governments traditionally DO?As I understand it, this question was discussed, it was deemed okay by Justice, two outsiders, one a constitutional law expert and another a former SC judge were consulted and saw no issues with it. The opposition members on the selection committee didn't have any issues either. The SC decided the criteria which applied to judges from everywhere else in Canada did not apply to judges from Quebec. <shrug>

don't spill any of that Koolaid on your shirt. It might stain.