Peter F Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 They rewrite laws all the time. For example, they added gays to the list of people who couldn't be discriminated against, even though sexual orientation was deliberately not included in the constitution. After adding them to the Constitution they then struck down the marriage act, because it now violated the constution they had just rewritten. Not so. They didn't add anything to the Constitution. They said that sexual orientation was no basis for exemption from Sec 15 of the constitution which guarantees equal protection and benefit of the law to every individual . IE they interpreted 'every individual ' to include gay people too. How very 'activist' of them. So they did not rewrite anything unless one takes the position that homosexuals are not 'individuals' protected by law. The same applies for your other examples. The court interprets what is written they do not add or edit legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Harper is right and the media is wrong. She was calling to lobby the PM one way or the other and that is wrong, if it was the other way around the PM would have to resign. And then since the PM said no to the call Queen Bev's nose was put out of joint and canned the judge. Lets not forget that judge was approved by eveyone, the NDP, liberal, judges, everyone. But then that leftwinged lawyer from TO raised a complaint. So it boiled down to if he was quebecois enough, which he was but bev decided to go the other way. And the notion that harper runs this country with a iron fist, has been blown out of the water, bev runs this country with a iron fist and she needs to answer for that or maybe even stepped down because she crossed the line, not harper. If she did call, which has not been proven yet,it wasn't to lobby it was to advise Harper he needed to read the SC Act. His short list included non-eligable appointees and he needed to be shown that. There was nothing before the court at the time, and consultation of this type is not uncommon. Harper chose to ginore it so now he's in "climb down" mode. That makes her right and Harfper wrong, again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Not so. They didn't add anything to the Constitution. They said that sexual orientation was no basis for exemption from Sec 15 of the constitution which guarantees equal protection and benefit of the law to every individual . IE they interpreted 'every individual ' to include gay people too. How very 'activist' of them. So they did not rewrite anything unless one takes the position that homosexuals are not 'individuals' protected by law. The same applies for your other examples. The court interprets what is written they do not add or edit legislation. How radical to interpret the word every to mean, well, every. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 If she did call, which has not been proven yet,it wasn't to lobby it was to advise Harper he needed to read the SC Act. His short list included non-eligable appointees and he needed to be shown that. There was nothing before the court at the time, and consultation of this type is not uncommon. Harper chose to ginore it so now he's in "climb down" mode. That makes her right and Harfper wrong, again. Harper knew it didn't meet the Supreme Court Act. That's why he tried to have Peter Mac rewrite the damn thing. That's why he has Pierre rewriting the Elections Act. Harper has a majority, so he's going to rewrite any legislation that stands in his way, Constitution be damned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Harper knew it didn't meet the Supreme Court Act. That's why he tried to have Peter Mac rewrite the damn thing. That's why he has Pierre rewriting the Elections Act. Harper has a majority, so he's going to rewrite any legislation that stands in his way, Constitution be damned. Oh I'm sure he knew what was in the act. What I am scratching my head over now is why did he wait so long to go public with his smear campaign. Didn't this alleged call happen months ago, or is Harper just not timely with his temper tantrums? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 (edited) Because he's possibly toying with the notwithstanding clause. Needs to gauge public sentiment first. So he's smearing the courts. Edited May 6, 2014 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Because he's possibly toying with the notwithstanding clause. Needs to gauge public sentiment first. So he's smearing the courts. I agree, the "notwithstanding" is about all he's got left now. I'm sure it occured to him before, just wondering about the timing. Perhaps there is no particular reason for why now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 They can't change legislation. They rule against legislation that does not comply with the Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If they could rewrite legislation, then we wouldn't be stuck in limbo on the prostitution question. They change legislation by changing the Constitution, and by taking things out of existing laws, ie, upholding one part, ruling against another part. You're picking nits. No, they do not sit down adn write a bill. They simply tell the government to do it because that's now the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 You're misinterpreting what they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 (edited) And they would have been able to actually rewrite the Truth in Sentencing act as it was intended, and we wouldn't be waiting for the government to do that now. Their behaviour in that case was one of the examples of the SC simply deciding to 'interpret' the Constitution any damned way they felt like interpreting it. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution which says that criminals are required to get time and a half or double time off for every day spent in pre-trial custody. The judges made it up. And since there is no right of appeal and no one to appeal to, they get their way. Edited May 6, 2014 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Son Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 I agree, the "notwithstanding" is about all he's got left now. I'm sure it occured to him before, just wondering about the timing. Perhaps there is no particular reason for why now. Complaining about the Supreme Court decision during the Quebec provincial election would have been a big boost for the separatists. Had to wait for a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Complaining about the Supreme Court decision during the Quebec provincial election would have been a big boost for the separatists. Had to wait for a bit. Good point. I guess if he would have known how bad the PQ was going to crater he could have launched his attack sooner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Their behaviour in that case was one of the examples of the SC simply deciding to 'interpret' the Constitution any damned way they felt like interpreting it. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution which says that criminals are required to get time and a half or double time off for every day spent in pre-trial custody. The judges made it up. And since there is no right of appeal and no one to appeal to, they get their way. That's not what the ruling said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 The government erred in the creation of the Truth in Sentencing Act. They allowed for 1.5 credit for time served under circumstances which they did not define. In the words of the court, if the government wanted to eliminate more than single credit, they would have explicitly done so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Their behaviour in that case was one of the examples of the SC simply deciding to 'interpret' the Constitution any damned way they felt like interpreting it. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution which says that criminals are required to get time and a half or double time off for every day spent in pre-trial custody. The judges made it up. And since there is no right of appeal and no one to appeal to, they get their way. It's in the Charter, section 11 (h) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 It's in the Charter, section 11 (h) No Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 He's already the greatest we've ever had by a pretty wide margin. ROFLMAO!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 ROFLMAO!!!!!! Yeah, pretty much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 7, 2014 Report Share Posted May 7, 2014 They change legislation by changing the Constitution, and by taking things out of existing laws, ie, upholding one part, ruling against another part. You're picking nits. No, they do not sit down adn write a bill. They simply tell the government to do it because that's now the law.The Constitution can't be changed by the Supreme Court either. That's not what they do. That's like saying a jury at a trial changes the criminal code by reaching a verdict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted May 7, 2014 Report Share Posted May 7, 2014 They change legislation by changing the Constitution, and by taking things out of existing laws, ie, upholding one part, ruling against another part. You're picking nits. No, they do not sit down adn write a bill. They simply tell the government to do it because that's now the law. You're going to have to provide an example of where this has happened. That's a fairly involved conclusion you're making here. I want you to back up your opinion with an actual example where you can specifically point to something that made you come to this conclusion. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 7, 2014 Report Share Posted May 7, 2014 No No? look it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted May 7, 2014 Report Share Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) No? look it up. here's section 11 of the charter: PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL AND PENAL MATTERS. 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right (a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence; ( to be tried within a reasonable time; © not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence; (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; (e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause; (f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment; (g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations; (h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and (i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment. Section 11(h) does not refer to what is being discussed. However 11(I). WWWTT Edited May 7, 2014 by WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 7, 2014 Report Share Posted May 7, 2014 Section 11(h) provides that “ 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ... (h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 7, 2014 Report Share Posted May 7, 2014 Section 11(h) provides that “ 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ... (h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; Also referred to as "double jeopardy" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 7, 2014 Report Share Posted May 7, 2014 That has nothing to do with the thing we're discussing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.