PM Harper At War With Supreme Court?

[Big Guy]

Stephen Harper has accused the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court of an “inappropriate” and “inadvisable” phone call which took place about a year ago.

This is an unprecedented criticism of and questioning of the impartiality of the ultimate court of the land. This jaw dropping “leak” from the PMO left journalists and pundits wondering what was the intent of this “leak”.

The last PMO unprecedented attack on Sheila Fraser on the new proposed voting procedure law proved to backfire. This public attack on the Supreme Court may have the same response. It has been established that the Supreme Court has far more credibility than any elected government from the vast majority of Canadians.

Why leak this a year after it happened?

What is Harper trying to achieve with this attack?

What does he expect will result from this attack?

Should those on the SC get their hands dirty and respond to this unprecedented criticism?

[On Guard for Thee]

Stephen Harper has accused the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court of an “inappropriate” and “inadvisable” phone call which took place about a year ago.

This is an unprecedented criticism of and questioning of the impartiality of the ultimate court of the land. This jaw dropping “leak” from the PMO left journalists and pundits wondering what was the intent of this “leak”.

The last PMO unprecedented attack on Sheila Fraser on the new proposed voting procedure law proved to backfire. This public attack on the Supreme Court may have the same response. It has been established that the Supreme Court has far more credibility than any elected government from the vast majority of Canadians.

Why leak this a year after it happened?

What is Harper trying to achieve with this attack?

What does he expect will result from this attack?

Should those on the SC get their hands dirty and respond to this unprecedented criticism?

Some of Harper's own cabinet ministers refer to him as "the dictator". And apparently he is prone to temper tantrums. I could only speculate, but I'd guess he's getting into one of those tantrums over being snubbed again and again by a higher power. He doesn't seem to accept that there is a higher power, which is surprising given his whacky religious affilliation (CAMA). And unfortunately, once again, he doesn't have his facts straight. It is kinda fun watching him shoot himself in the foot yet again.

[Bryan]

The Supreme Court has done enough to erase their own credibility in the past few years. Compared to the democratically elected government, the SCC has NONE.

[On Guard for Thee]

The Supreme Court has done enough to erase their own credibility in the past few years. Compared to the democratically elected government, the SCC has NONE.

You do understand who appointed most of those SCC judges, and while we're at it most of the currently sitting senators? The fact they are both shutting him down I think speaks more to his credibility than theirs.

[Bryan]

You do understand who appointed most of those SCC judges, and while we're at it most of the currently sitting senators? The fact they are both shutting him down I think speaks more to his credibility than theirs.

It does. It means he did not stack the deck with people just to do his bidding. He put people in whom he expected to do a fair non-partisan job. Guess he won't make that mistake again.

[On Guard for Thee]

It does. It means he did not stack the deck with people just to do his bidding. He put people in whom he expected to do a fair non-partisan job. Guess he won't make that mistake again.

And who do you think Nadon was if it wasn't stacking the deck? We could carry on to Wallin, Duffy, and Brazeau, etc. All bad choices but all meant to do the same thing. Stack the deck and collect money.

[Bryan]

Nadon was a good choice, rejecting him was a mistake the SCC will regret. Are you ready for Chief Justice Vic Toews? If it happens, the left will only have themselves to blame.

[On Guard for Thee]

Nadon was a good choice, rejecting him was a mistake the SCC will regret. Are you ready for Chief Justice Vic Toews? If it happens, the left will only have themselves to blame.

And why would that be? Do you think anybody but Harper would appoint a dolt like Toews?

[Moonlight Graham]

Harper is control-freak. This is him crying, and probably lying, because he hasn't been getting his way in the SCC. The man needs to be replaced badly.

[normanchateau]

Nadon was a good choice, rejecting him was a mistake the SCC will regret. Are you ready for Chief Justice Vic Toews? If it happens, the left will only have themselves to blame.

So you think that the Supreme Court of Canada, the majority of whose members are Harper appointees, are "the left"?

It would not surprise me if Harper appointed Vic Toews to the Supreme Court.. Vic Toews, a religious nut like Stephen Harper, is the fanatic who fired all non-Christian chaplains and replaced them with Christian chaplains:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/government-cuts-non-christian-prison-chaplains/article4591355/

Toews and Harper: religious zealots who mix politics with religion.

[bleeding heart]

I like how that if Harper appoints Toews...it will magically be "the left's" fault, and that "the left" will "have only themselves to blame."

Harper, evidently, should not be held responsible even for his own direct actions.

Partisan tautology is as perfect as tautology gets.

[cybercoma]

It does. It means he did not stack the deck with people just to do his bidding. He put people in whom he expected to do a fair non-partisan job. Guess he won't make that mistake again.

So then the other side of that coin is the suggestion that his legislation is unfair and partisan. If the Senate and SCC are doing their jobs properly, then Harper and the PMO are not.

[Smallc]

I don't really understand why he did this. This is the side of Harper that I don't like. The SCC has far more respect from Canadians than The Government of Canada (except on a few issues). This just loses him credibility that he was gaining back.

[cybercoma]

The problem with his approach here is this: he appointed the majority of SCC justices. If he campaigns against the SCC, then he's campaigning against his own leadership. I don't expect it to happen. This is just dog-whistle politics to make supporters like Argus feel all warm and fuzzy. Argus apparently hates the SCC, since he consistently complains about "activists judges." This is just a nod to them, then it will go away. Logically, it would be extremely stupid to campaign against a court that he created.

[cybercoma]

If Harper spent half as much time actually governing appropriately, instead of trying to undermine the checks and balances to the PMO's power, he might actually be a great pragmatic Prime Minister.

[Bryan]

If Harper spent half as much time actually governing appropriately, instead of trying to undermine the checks and balances to the PMO's power, he might actually be a great pragmatic Prime Minister.

He's already the greatest we've ever had by a pretty wide margin.

[cybercoma]

You certainly think so.

[Big Guy]

I don't really understand why he did this. This is the side of Harper that I don't like. The SCC has far more respect from Canadians than The Government of Canada (except on a few issues). This just loses him credibility that he was gaining back.

I agree. This approach makes no political sense and in fact erodes confidence in Harper's decision making. What is this attack supposed to do?

Undermine the credibility of the Supreme Court? No one would pit the credibility of the Supreme Court against that of any current PMO.

Trying to get rid of the Chief Justice? Doesn't make sense. Most anti-Harper decisions have been unanimous.

Garner support from independent voters? Not a chance!

Intimidate members of the Supreme Court? I think not.

This is akin to Harper shooting a political shot into his own foot.

The only explanation I can fathom is in Tom Flanagan's new book;

“He can be suspicious, secretive and vindictive, prone to sudden eruptions of white-hot rage over meaningless trivia, at other times falling into week-long depressions in which he is incapable of making decisions.’’

Surely, one trusted aid would have advised him against this obvious political misstep.

[cybercoma]

You know what makes his fight with the Chief Justice even more disturbing? She swore in Nadon before the SCC overturned the decision.

[PIK]

Some of Harper's own cabinet ministers refer to him as "the dictator". And apparently he is prone to temper tantrums. I could only speculate, but I'd guess he's getting into one of those tantrums over being snubbed again and again by a higher power. He doesn't seem to accept that there is a higher power, which is surprising given his whacky religious affilliation (CAMA). And unfortunately, once again, he doesn't have his facts straight. It is kinda fun watching him shoot himself in the foot yet again.

Actually they refer to him as ''The Boss'' But is harper at war with her or is she at war with him. Edited May 3, 2014 by PIK

[On Guard for Thee]

Actually they refer to him as ''The Boss'' But is harper at war with her or is she at war with him.

Some may refer to him as the boss. I doubt she really gives a hoot. So far it's him making baseless insinuations and he's punching WELL above his weight this time. Temper Temper Stephen!

[Remiel]

Stephen Harper is a monarchist. Think about that.

Also, if you think Stephen Harper is the greatest prime minister Canada has ever had: Well, there are lots of true things I could say about you that are against the rules of these forums. None of them nice.

[Smallc]

So what if he's a monarchist? We do live in a monarchy after all.

[cybercoma]

Stephen Harper is a monarchist. Think about that.

Also, if you think Stephen Harper is the greatest prime minister Canada has ever had: Well, there are lots of true things I could say about you that are against the rules of these forums. None of them nice.

ok. I've thought about it. What's your point?

[Argus]

I don't really understand why he did this. This is the side of Harper that I don't like. The SCC has far more respect from Canadians than The Government of Canada (except on a few issues). This just loses him credibility that he was gaining back.

I tend to agree, though I have virtually no respect for them and think the reflexive respect Canadians have is based mainy on ignorance.

I think Harper is frustrated, but more at the way judges 'interpret' the Charter, and at the Charter itself, than at any particular judge.

I should say that I've never thought much of the Charter. I was opposed to it when it was being discussed. I thought it was a dumb idea, that it would lead to judicial governing and that decisions would often make no practical, real world sense. Constitutions do virtually NOTHING to guarantee freedom or human rights. They just provide money for lawyers and are used by special interest groups to elevate their interests above those of the public.

The ability of judges to 'interpret' things, to 'read into' the Constitution that which was either never written in the first place, or even deliberately excluded, has just made it more of a problem.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Argus