Shady Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 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? When you start a topic like this, can you please link to the story you're referring to? Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 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? It's mildly curious that you failed to address the actual topic that matters: the alleged conduct of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Not surprising, and you have plenty of company here and in the media, but stil curious. If it is true, the Chief may have to consider resignation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 There's no evidence that she did anything wrong. The Canadian Bar Association has already sided with her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 What was the nature of the phone call, and where or who was it to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 There's no evidence that she did anything wrong. The Canadian Bar Association has already sided with her. This surprises you? The bar would support her if she was caught skinning babies and eating them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 This surprises you? The bar would support her if she was caught skinning babies and eating them. It looks really bad for Harper. These kind of things lose him support. He knew he couldn't change the Senate on his own. His government never should have written in the 1.5 times allowance for some, and should write it out to fix it. These things can be death with. The Marc Nadon thing though...I think the court was wrong there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 ok. I've thought about it. What's your point? A monarchist attacking what should be a sacrosanct political position for the crime of being unelected. Cognitive dissonance much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 A monarchist attacking what should be a sacrosanct political position for the crime of being unelected. Cognitive dissonance much?do you understand what a Constitutional Monarchy is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 I'm no constitutional lawyer but if I read between the lines correctly, this is a bit of Harper spin that could come back to bite him. It seems to me that the Chief Justice office either did, or attempted to contact the PM, or contemplated it, through Peter Mackay with regard to a discussion of eligibility of Quebec judges to be appointed to the SC. They have tried to spin that into an attempt to discuss Nadon specifically, which would be innapropriate. Nadon's name was on the short list to fill the SC vacancy and perhaps that may have been the trigger to suggest Harper should perhaps read the constitution. Given the respect the SCC has vs that for the Harper government, I think this is a losing battle that Harper has weighed into. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icebound Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 You know what makes his fight with the Chief Justice even more disturbing? She swore in Nadon before the SCC overturned the decision. Precisely. Which undermines the argument that somehow she is "anti-Harper", or some sort of law-making activist. She swore in the Prime Minister's appointee as per normal protocol. She did not initiate any action to remove him.. The SC, as a whole, rejected his appointment only when the legal arguments for and against were made by outside parties. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icebound Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 I'm no constitutional lawyer but if I read between the lines correctly, this is a bit of Harper spin that could come back to bite him. It seems to me that the Chief Justice office either did, or attempted to contact the PM, or contemplated it, through Peter Mackay with regard to a discussion of eligibility of Quebec judges to be appointed to the SC. They have tried to spin that into an attempt to discuss Nadon specifically, which would be innapropriate. Nadon's name was on the short list to fill the SC vacancy and perhaps that may have been the trigger to suggest Harper should perhaps read the constitution. Given the respect the SCC has vs that for the Harper government, I think this is a losing battle that Harper has weighed into. He may not know it, living as he does in his PMO bubble, but this is a battle that he has already lost. ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted May 5, 2014 Report Share Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) Politicians do not speak to judges, Harper was right, she was in the wrong. Edited May 5, 2014 by PIK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 5, 2014 Report Share Posted May 5, 2014 Politicians do not speak to judges, Harper was right, she was in the wrong.Do you have something to back up this opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted May 5, 2014 Report Share Posted May 5, 2014 Do you have something to back up this opinion? Just going by tradition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 5, 2014 Report Share Posted May 5, 2014 Politicians do not speak to judges, Harper was right, she was in the wrong.Ask the Law Society their opinion and come on back. Hint...they have already addressed this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 5, 2014 Report Share Posted May 5, 2014 What was the nature of the alleged call? Does anybody know? Was an actual call made? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted May 5, 2014 Report Share Posted May 5, 2014 Ask the Law Society their opinion and come on back. Hint...they have already addressed this Got a link??? And has a SCJ ever called a PM on government matters. Would it not be wrong for her to discuss this and vote on it also? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted May 5, 2014 Report Share Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) What was the nature of the alleged call? Does anybody know? Was an actual call made? http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/beverley-mclachlin-pmo-give-duelling-statements-on-nadon-appointment-fight-1.2628563 probably better: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/05/01/stephen-harper-marc-nadon-call_n_5250092.html Edited May 5, 2014 by Peter F Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 5, 2014 Report Share Posted May 5, 2014 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/beverley-mclachlin-pmo-give-duelling-statements-on-nadon-appointment-fight-1.2628563 probably better: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/05/01/stephen-harper-marc-nadon-call_n_5250092.html Thanks for the links! Apparently nobody provides any sources for what they talk about anymore. The Chief Justice's call was completely inappropriate. Does she know what her job is? Does she know what she's suppose to, and not suppose to do? This is ridiculous. Talk about a monkey court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted May 5, 2014 Report Share Posted May 5, 2014 At the time of the alleged call there was no case before the SC. A short list had been provided to the court withnames of potential appointees. Apparently that list prompted discussion at the SC as to wheither to advise the PMO of eligibilty issues in general. Perhaps if Harper would have listened up he would have saved himself the embarrasment of SCC rejection number 5, and us taxpayers a boatload of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 5, 2014 Report Share Posted May 5, 2014 . Perhaps if Harper would have listened up he would have saved himself the embarrasment of SCC rejection number 5, and us taxpayers a boatload of money.Im Steve Harper dammit ! It would appear so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted May 5, 2014 Report Share Posted May 5, 2014 One reporter said that their view was the Tories will use the courts in the election, when they court turn down the Tories upcoming Bills before the election, saying their are unconstitutional and dismisses them and tell the Tory base they are against us. 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 Im Steve Harper dammit ! It would appear so. Could be but I suspect if he thinks about it for a minute he will shut his mouth and back away from this issue. He won't ever win and the more he goes the more he looks like a spoiled child. Canadian PM's should be made of tougher stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Thanks for the links! Apparently nobody provides any sources for what they talk about anymore. The Chief Justice's call was completely inappropriate. Does she know what her job is? Does she know what she's suppose to, and not suppose to do? This is ridiculous. Talk about a monkey court.the Supreme Court is a monkey court? Hahaha. Do you know who appointed most of those monkeys to the bench? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 One reporter said that their view was the Tories will use the courts in the election, when they court turn down the Tories upcoming Bills before the election, saying their are unconstitutional and dismisses them and tell the Tory base they are against us.thats cute. The SCC unconstitutional. Do the Tories even know what the constitution is? 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.