On Guard for Thee Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 the Supreme Court is a monkey court? Hahaha. Do you know who appointed most of those monkeys to the bench? Ah, hold on let me guess. Was it maybe the main monkey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 (edited) 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. Edited May 6, 2014 by PIK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Harper should probably keep his mouth closed now: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/chief-justice-beverley-mclachlin-more-than-just-a-sitting-judge-1.2632765 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 (edited) You know, people are fond of the term 'checks and balances'. So what exactly is the check on the Supreme Court? What prevents them from doing whatever they want to do in terms of rewriting laws? Edited May 6, 2014 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 (edited) P Harper should probably keep his mouth closed now: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/chief-justice-beverley-mclachlin-more-than-just-a-sitting-judge-1.2632765 Because the CBC says so. She is the one that stepped out of line, but in this day and age who cares, just blame harper. She should have excuse herself from deciding on that judge after she attempted to lobby harper. That shows she made up her mind and was not a neutral judge in that process. Democracy is being ruined here by the courts and the media and the opp who go along with this mess created by a SCJ.. Edited May 6, 2014 by PIK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 You didn't read the article did you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 (edited) You know, people are fond of the term 'checks and balances'. So what exactly is the check on the Supreme Court? What prevents them from doing whatever they want to do in terms of rewriting laws? When have they ever 'rewritten' laws? The constitution of this country ( brought about by parliament) require the SCC to check and balance the executive branch. That they did and have done. They strike down laws - they don't make them. edit to add: ...and the check on the SCC is the notwithstanding clause. Edited May 6, 2014 by Peter F Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F 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. Yeah, it was so clear-cut an appointment that the government had to change the legislation to make Nadon eligible for appointment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Yeah, it was so clear-cut an appointment that the government had to change the legislation to make Nadon eligible for appointment. Where did they do that. It all came down to if he was quebecois enough. He was born and raised in quebec, he was a quebec lawyer and a memeber of the quebec bar, but thenm became a fed judge and that is the sticky point. But why was he approved by everyione including bev, untill this freak of a left wing lawyer says he is not quebecois enough. And then bev changes her mind after harper rejected her call .She is the one making uip ,the rules as she goes along.To bad the media party would not tell the truth for once. Everyone of then blamed harper before anyone even knew what really went on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Son Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Where did they do that. It all came down to if he was quebecois enough. He was born and raised in quebec, he was a quebec lawyer and a memeber of the quebec bar, but thenm became a fed judge and that is the sticky point. But why was he approved by everyione including bev, untill this freak of a left wing lawyer says he is not quebecois enough. And then bev changes her mind after harper rejected her call .She is the one making uip ,the rules as she goes along.To bad the media party would not tell the truth for once. Everyone of then blamed harper before anyone even knew what really went on. It is a real talent to misread and misrepresent a prominent news story as badly as you have done in your last couple posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 You didn't read the article did you? Yes I did and the 1st comment on that article nails it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 (edited) If that lawyer did not complain he would be on the bench as we speak. Everybody had already approved him. Edited May 6, 2014 by PIK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Son Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 If that lawyer did not complain he would be on the bench as we speak. Everybody had already approved him. So what? I don't think that you understand how the legal system works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted May 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 You know, people are fond of the term 'checks and balances'. So what exactly is the check on the Supreme Court? What prevents them from doing whatever they want to do in terms of rewriting laws? They are appointed by the PM of the day. They usually outlast the government which appointed them. Their role is to interpret the law as to the restrictions of our constitution. This particular court is unusually slanted to those appointed by Conservative governments; 1 by Martin, 1 by Chretien, 1 by Mulroney and 5 by Harper. They cannot initiate legislation. The major check that they have is that different governments and Prime Ministers come and go while most of the time the Supreme Court changes very slowly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 (edited) When have they ever 'rewritten' laws? The constitution of this country ( brought about by parliament) require the SCC to check and balance the executive branch. That they did and have done. They strike down laws - they don't make them. edit to add: ...and the check on the SCC is the notwithstanding clause. 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. I don't want to get into a discussion about gay rights here. Just pointing out the power they have to rewrite laws. They decided Metis were to be given the status of natives, not the government. They decided that 'oral histories' passed down by natives and completely unvalidated, must be accepted in terms of treaty negotiations. More recently, they decided that judges, not the government, will determine what criminal sentences are given. They have an awful lot of power, are not elected, and no one can disagree with them. And the Notwithstanding Clause only applies to specific parts of the Charter, and are time-limited. Edited May 6, 2014 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 They are appointed by the PM of the day. They usually outlast the government which appointed them. Their role is to interpret the law as to the restrictions of our constitution. This particular court is unusually slanted to those appointed by Conservative governments; 1 by Martin, 1 by Chretien, 1 by Mulroney and 5 by Harper. They cannot initiate legislation. The major check that they have is that different governments and Prime Ministers come and go while most of the time the Supreme Court changes very slowly. They might not be able to 'initiate' legislation, but they can change any legislation they want to, which is pretty close to the same thing given lawyers have a notion how the SC might feel about things, and will bring cases to them in hopes of them making changes. The SC gets to pick and choose which cases it's going to hear, as well, ie, which ones feature parts of law they might be interested in overturning and rewriting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 She was calling to lobby the PM Citation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 You know, people are fond of the term 'checks and balances'. So what exactly is the check on the Supreme Court? What prevents them from doing whatever they want to do in terms of rewriting laws? Well, for starters, they can't write laws. So that's a bit of a hinderance to writing laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Because the CBC says so. Because she's Deputy Governor General. Because she's head of the judicial branch of government. Because she's a member of the Privy Council. Because it's actually her job to advise the other branches of government on the constitution. Because you should probably understand the situation before you pick sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 (edited) Because you should probably understand the situation before you pick sides. Conservative, never wrong in some eyes Judging on their science stance I expect to hear the world is flat Edited May 6, 2014 by Guyser2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Where did they do that. You're welcome. Faced with an unprecedented challenge to the legitimacy of the latest appointment to Supreme Court, Justice Minister Peter MacKay is rewriting the law that governs such choices.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-hide-change-to-supreme-court-nominations-in-new-budget-bill/article14991559/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 If that lawyer did not complain he would be on the bench as we speak. Everybody had already approved him. If prosecutors didn't press charges, we would have no criminals either. *shrugs* Not a very enlightening comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 They might not be able to 'initiate' legislation, but they can change any legislation they want to, which is pretty close to the same thing given lawyers have a notion how the SC might feel about things, and will bring cases to them in hopes of them making changes. The SC gets to pick and choose which cases it's going to hear, as well, ie, which ones feature parts of law they might be interested in overturning and rewriting. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 (edited) Where did they do that. It all came down to if he was quebecois enough. He was born and raised in quebec, he was a quebec lawyer and a memeber of the quebec bar, but thenm became a fed judge and that is the sticky point. But why was he approved by everyione including bev, untill this freak of a left wing lawyer says he is not quebecois enough. And then bev changes her mind after harper rejected her call .She is the one making uip ,the rules as she goes along.To bad the media party would not tell the truth for once. Everyone of then blamed harper before anyone even knew what really went on. Where did they do that? Try to amend the Supreme Court Act you mean? They (present government) did that on October 22nd 2013 by introducing Bill C4 into parliament. Bill C4 "a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on March 21" Specifically clauses 471 and 472 of the Bill C4 Thats when they did that. The time-line involved in the disputed appointment of Mr.Nadon is interesting: 11 June 2013: SCC selection panel announced (http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/nr-cp/2013/doc_32908.html) 30 September 2013: PM Harper announces his selection Federal Court judge Marc Nadon to the SCC (http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2013/09/30/pm-announces-nominee-supreme-court-canada) 22 October 2013: Government introduces bill C4 to parliament 22 October 2013: The Gov.Gen. in Council issues Order in Council P.C. 2013-1105 referring to the SCC questions about the correctness of articles 471 and 472 of Bill C4 (http://www.pco.gc.ca/oic-ddc.asp?lang=eng&Page=secretariats&txtOICID=2013-1105&txtFromDate=&txtToDate=&txtPrecis=&txtDepartment=&txtAct=&txtChapterNo=&txtChapterYear=&txtBillNo=&rdoComingIntoForce=&DoSearch=Search+%2F+List&viewattach=28366&blnDisplayFlg=1 So my point stands about 'when did they do that?'. Harper appointed Nadon at the end of September then introduced legislation to thee weeks later to make him eligible. Edited May 6, 2014 by Peter F 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.