PM Harper At War With Supreme Court?

[ReeferMadness]

Now there's some scary thoughts. I agree with your points. Let's hope we can head 'em off at the pass at the next election. I'll have no problem casting a ballot, I've lived in the same place for 27 years. I wonder about the guyI see at the bus stop downtown with his sign that says he's lost his job and can you help me out. He seems like a decent guy, I don't know why he lost his job, he's certainly not alone, and he probalby has a right to vote. I wonder if he will be able to. If he does I bet he doesn't vote for Harper. Just a guess.

Maybe but then again maybe not. Paradoxically, there are a lot of very right wing people with very low incomes.

In fact, I used to be one of them.

[On Guard for Thee]

Maybe but then again maybe not. Paradoxically, there are a lot of very right wing people with very low incomes.

In fact, I used to be one of them.

As far as I know, the constitution says if you are a Canadian, 18 or older, you have the right to vote. We could discuss the posibility of changing that, but I support it as it stands. And what I don't buy is this overblown panic that Poilievre talks about of all these fraudulent voters. If they have proof, bring it on. If they had proof they would have brought it on. I hate it when twerps like Poilievre tries to mess with me.

[cybercoma]

The Dean of Osgoode Law has weighed in on the issue, explaining that "[g]overnment also has recourse to complaints to the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) if they believe a judge has acted unethically (it was government that initiated the recent Cosgrove complaint, for example). If the Prime Minister actually believed last summer that the Chief Justice had acted unethically, he could have simply filed a complaint." Sossin also explains that judges do not have an avenue in the reverse direction, that is to resolve conflicts with the government. Judges are charged with remaining non-partisan, so the Chief Justice is stuck between a rock and a hard place. She can't respond to the allegations because then it would be playing into the political agenda of the Harper Government. So the question remains, if Stephen Harper believed the Chief Justice acted unethically last July, why did he not file a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council ten months ago when the phone call took place?

Harper's actions may seem baffling to observers, but make no mistake about it, this plays to his base. There are Conservatives who see the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a Liberal invention by Pierre Trudeau and believe that our courts, indeed our very rights and freedoms, are part of some liberal agenda. It takes some serious cognitive dissonance to be a party of crime and punishment, reliant on the courts, to hold this view. Yet many of the statements from Harper Conservatives hinge on the theme of being victimized by liberals. Further illustrating the kind of logical pretzels you need to twist, they hold this view despite having a majority in the House of Commons, a majority in the Senate, and a majority of the sitting Supreme Court Justices. Even the Chief Justice herself was appointed by the Progressive Conservative party. Nevertheless, this is not enough to allow Stephen Harper to run away and do whatever he wants because Canadians have fundamental rights and freedoms codified in the Constitution. People that continue to support the Harper Conservatives need to take a good hard look at his policies and question why he keeps coming into resistance from the institutions that protect our most basic rights. There is a serious problem with the way Harper governs when a Senate stacked with his own picks still kicks legislation back to the House of Commons where Harper's party holds a majority. There is a serious problem when the Supreme Court, which has a majority of Conservative justices, shoots down legislation that he and his party has passed. Stephen Harper, simply put, does not know how to govern. Anyone who sees a government, any government, trying so desperately to overcome the very reasonable obstacles that we have in place to ensure a balance of power should be concerned. What we are witnessing here severe disrespect for our institutions and with the SCC issue an attempt to undermine our fundamental rights and freedoms. We're seeing a party that has grown more and more arrogant. They've grown drunk with power and now believe they are above the laws that ensure citizens are protected from legislation that violates our rights.

[Sewing equipment]

FWhat may you suggest about your put up that you just made some days in the past? Any sure?

[Argus]

Did I mention that his base has a lot of money but isn't very well informed?

Just checking.

Saying something stupid multiple times doesn't make it less stupid.

Cause you seem to believe otherwise.

[Argus]

Harper's actions may seem baffling to observers, but make no mistake about it, this plays to his base. There are Conservatives who see the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a Liberal invention by Pierre Trudeau and believe that our courts, indeed our very rights and freedoms, are part of some liberal agenda.

Oh drivel. You guys veer wildly back and forth between your wierd conspiracies about Harper. Sometimes he's the tool and sevant of the elites, and sometimes he's the evil outsider trying to tear down the system built and maintained by -- the elites.

And if the Canadian Bar Association isn't part of the elites then I don't know what is.

He's trying to destroy the Supreme Court, the guardian of our freedoms! Except that most of the apparently very independant minded people on the Supreme Court were appointed by -- Stephen Harper. Whaaaa...

As to the Charter, to listen to some of you we were a fascist dictatorship with soldiers -- with guns -- in the streets -- until the blessed Trudeau saved us with his Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The fact is nothing changed for Canadians with the implimentation of the Charter except that we now pay massive amounts of money to lawyers who act on behalf of special interest groups. The average Canadian has not benefited in any way, shape or form from the Charter, and never will. On the contrary, they've had to fork over tens of billions of dollars because of the Charter and its various interpretations, none of which benefit the average Canadian.

And btw, the idea that a piece of paper, and not a very well-written one, somehow guarantees freedoms is ludicrous, and belied by history.

Harper's base doesn't much like lawyers. You've got that part right. That's because Harper's base are, fundamentally, very conservative in their beliefs, and that includes a deep and abiding belief in fundamental justice. Lawyers disdain anything remotely akin to justice. Their own ethics call for them to ignore it. All they care about is winning and money. The lawyer who could get Hitler off or get Bernardo out of prison would be the toast of the legal community. A lawyer who can write a contract that absolutely screws over everyone but his client would be hoisted on the shoulders of every gathering of lawyers in the land. And fairness wouldn't even enter into their consideration. Lawyers don't care about fair and never have. They care about money and about winning, which brings them money. Yes, yes, there are exceptions, of course, but even so.

[eyeball]

Oh drivel. You guys veer wildly back and forth between your wierd conspiracies about Harper. Sometimes he's the tool and sevant of the elites, and sometimes he's the evil outsider trying to tear down the system built and maintained by -- the elites.

No, the term elites in the context you're using means any academics, lawyers, environmentalists and whatnot deemed to be left of center/liberals - and definitely anyone who subscribes to a justice system as opposed to a vengeance system.

Otherwise he's a tool and servant of wealth and oligarchy. None of the crap he's stirred up does nothing to detract from that. Funnily enough, the needs of this class will still be met regardless of whether the elites that have you all excited are in power or not. In either case, the stinking rich keep on getting putrescently richer and the powerful keep on getting more powerful.

[cybercoma]

Argus, your views on the Supreme Court are a joke. His base have a belief in "fundamental justice"? What does that even mean in this context? Our rights and freedoms are entrenched in the Constitution and we have a Supreme Court that hears cases about whether or not legislation is legal. Canada has always had a top court. From 1875-1949 it was the Privy Council. From 1949-82, it was the Supreme Court. From 1982 until today the Supreme Court is guided by the Charter.

You want to sit here and whine about activist judges writing the law, while you long for the days before the Charter was entrenched. In those days, we had the Canadian Bill of Rights, which could simply be amended by a vote in parliament. With the consolidation of power in the PMO today and the way Harper and Chrétien have behaved at the helm, and for that matter Mulroney, could you imagine if they could change our rights and freedoms with the stroke of a pen? Before 1960 civil rights in Canada were simply implied. Imagine the mess today if our rights were unenumerated?

You talk about activist judges today with such disdain, but judges in those days had even more sway over what they considered people's rights. You're suffering from a falsely romanticized version of the past that would almost certainly be a nightmare if it were reality today.

Edited May 7, 2014 by cybercoma

[Big Guy]

Oh drivel. You guys veer wildly back and forth between your wierd conspiracies about Harper. Sometimes he's the tool and sevant of the elites, and sometimes he's the evil outsider trying to tear down the system built and maintained by -- the elites.

I do not think that Harper is either evil or stupid person. I do believe Tom Flanagan, who started as Harper's mentor and I think knows him best that “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.”

I think Harper lost his cool, is surrounded by subservient acolytes who are afraid to cross him and said something really dumb. Since he never acknowledges a mistake, he and the PMO had to continue on this destructive road. They have since tried to bury this issue.

I am glad that we do not have nuclear weapons with Harper having access to the red button.

[Argus]

You want to sit here and whine about activist judges writing the law, while you long for the days before the Charter was entrenched. In those days, we had the Canadian Bill of Rights, which could simply be amended by a vote in parliament.

It's called democracy. A lot of people believe it's a pretty good system.

With the consolidation of power in the PMO today and the way Harper and Chrétien have behaved at the helm, and for that matter Mulroney, could you imagine if they could change our rights and freedoms with the stroke of a pen?

Imagine the efficiency! The incredible cost savings!

The fact of the matter is that a PM with the majority in parliament behind him can do just about anything he wants to do, supreme court or not. If in your imaginary world Harper's party would support him in something like abolishing the right of free speech, then it would also support him in overriding the Constitution using the notwistanding clause.

No, the real difference was that parliament, unlike the SC, has to take into account the will of the people, and not transgress too far from it.

Papers don't protect freedom. It's the will of the people which protects freedom. Lots of autocratic countries have constitutions which protect basic rights, and they're not worth the paper they're written on because there's no institutional or public sentiment willing and able to enforce them. How many times a day do you think the Russian government violates its written constitution?

[Argus]

.”

I think Harper lost his cool, is surrounded by subservient acolytes who are afraid to cross him and said something really dumb. Since he never acknowledges a mistake, he and the PMO had to continue on this destructive road. They have since tried to bury this issue.

I think that someone in the PMO who was angry about things let slip some stuff to the media they shouldn't have and weren't supposed to. And I think after that, well, given the Harper people, including caucus, aren't terribly fond of the judges, and resent their 'interference' nobody was really willng to pull the cat back and stuff it into a bag. Stupid, but then the Tories have never been very good at PR.

As someone, one of the major columnists said a few weeks back, the Tories have actually governed quite well. It's their percieved 'meanness' on a variety of issues which has left a bad flavour in the mouths of a lot of people, and usually over petty stuff like this. I mean, Nadon wasn't much of a prize, from what I've seen. Sure, some of the people on the SC aren't much of a prize either, but the decision's been made and it's not like you can overturn it, so there's nothing to gain here but bad publicity they don't need.

[cybercoma]

It's called democracy. A lot of people believe it's a pretty good system.

And the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has a democratic process for changes. It just so happens that the tyranny of a House majority can't stroke those right away with a pen.

Imagine the efficiency! The incredible cost savings!

You know what else is efficient and saves a lot of money? A tyrannical dictatorship. Efficiency is not a Good in itself.

No, the real difference was that parliament, unlike the SC, has to take into account the will of the people, and not transgress too far from it.

And we've seen how much accountability MPs have to their constituents these days. Between elections they're impotent.

Anyway, your views are antiquated. Nobody's going to run on a platform of abolishing the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Nobody in their right mind would go after the Supreme Court. So really, the entire discussion here is a non-starter.

[PIK]

So what? I don't think that you understand how the legal system works.

It is all about interpertation of the law. It can go either way,depends on the mood and bev was in a poor one.

[PIK]

The Ontario Crown attorney’s office has responded to a constitutional challenge of the controversial mandatory victim surcharge by lambasting Ottawa judges for their “brazen and very public insurrection” against the new law.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Ottawa+judges+accused+insurrection+over+mandatory+victim+surcharge/9811803/story.html

I think it is time for refresher courses for these judges that think they are above the law. With all that power they have ,I can see how easily it would go to thier heads.

[PIK]

So why exactly was the problem with his nomination?

[cybercoma]

So why exactly was the problem with his nomination?

He doesn't meet the qualification criteria for a Québec seat on the Supreme Court. Go read the decision. Edited May 7, 2014 by cybercoma

[Big Guy]

To disagree with a decision of the Supreme Court is normal. Every government has done so but readily accepts and respects the decision. To impugn the integrity and impartiality of an arm of government, especially the judicial arm, is irresponsible and works to weaken and divide this great nation.

This was a dumb move and mistake by Harper. The PMO is starting to tap dance on this issue and working hard to get this issue off the horizon.

[On Guard for Thee]

To disagree with a decision of the Supreme Court is normal. Every government has done so but readily accepts and respects the decision. To impugn the integrity and impartiality of an arm of government, especially the judicial arm, is irresponsible and works to weaken and divide this great nation.

This was a dumb move and mistake by Harper. The PMO is starting to tap dance on this issue and working hard to get this issue off the horizon.

If you happened to see QP today you could clearly see Harper doing just what you suggest. Perhaps, as has been suggested in this thread, that he was playing to his base with this thing, I think even he has realized that that has backfired. It seems his base is saying "shut up on this one Stephen"

[PIK]

So in this country you can't critize bev and the boys?? And what part of the criteria does he not have?? Is it because he became a federal judge??

Edited May 8, 2014 by PIK

[cybercoma]

PIK, if you won't at least make a small effort to understand what you're talking about, then there's really no point in responding to you. Stephen Harper is criticizing the head of the judicial branch of government for doing her job, communicating with the head of the executive branch of government. This was well before the case against Nadon went to court. Harper had 10 month to criticize her phone call and said nothing until now, until after the decision. The Chief Justice is required to remain non-partisan. Harper's creating a partisan issue, which means she's not allowed to respond. If Stephen Harper had a problem with her making that phone call he could have brought the issue before the judicial review committee that oversees problems and complaints with judges. He did not do that then and he's not doing that now, why? Even Charles Adler, whose praises you sang when he was at Sun, criticizes Harper for this. Wake up and take off your partisan blinders.

[eyeball]

Stephen Harper is obviously way in over his head.

[Argus]

He doesn't meet the qualification criteria for a Québec seat on the Supreme Court. Go read the decision.

The newly changed criteria, changed by this decision.

[cybercoma]

Looks good on them. Lose a Supreme Court decision, change the law to suit your needs. Just like Brian Mulroney adding Senators so he could get GST through. Same old. Same old.

[On Guard for Thee]

The newly changed criteria, changed by this decision.

The criteria was not changed by this decision, but Harper did try.

[hardworker786]

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?

Most Canadians do not know that Harper is an evangelical Christian with neoconservative views. His administrative style reflects that. Would make Cheney proud.