Argus Posted February 16, 2015 Report Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) But how many of those would give up lucrative careers in private practice for a career working for the government? We see the same self selection in other academic fields: the people least interested in social causes tend to not have the patience/willingness to deal with government jobs. It is interesting to note that Harper's latest appointment comes direct from private practice. Unknown. There is a noted critic of the Canadian courts and of how we train lawyers, in Professor Emeritus Robert Martin who once opined: "There are two phrases that can be used to describe every law faculty in Canada. The phrases are: 'feminist seminary' and 'psychotic kindergarten'." He called their fees absurd and extortionate, and given their miserable performance and teaching quality ought to be charging about $12 per year. Clearly not a fan of Canadian law schools. He also says the adoption of the judicial means of 'reading substance into legislation' amounts to amending the constitution by judicial fiat, and thus, in effect, legislating with no public consultation, participation or remedy. This, from a book review of The Most Dangerous Branch Martin gets off to a reasonable start. The study of constitutional law and jurisprudence has evolved far beyond the antiquated notion that judges “find law.” Schools of thought, driven by the critical legal studies movement, feminist analysis, the political jurisprudence, the attitudinal model and so forth, all have indicated that the analysis and development of law are colored by such factors as culture and personal beliefs. In this same spirit, Martin opens with the assertion that judicial review in Canada is “seriously lacking in principle and reason and characterized to an unacceptable degree by personal preference and personal power” http://www.lawcourts.org/LPBR/reviews/martin1205.htm Edited to add, that Martin's book is available on Google books for on-line reading. the chapter on the supreme court is of particular interest as he makes the case that the Supreme Court, with 'reading in' has usurped the role of the legislature. In Chapter One he makes the case that the SC has substituted 'values' for legal principals, and that values by their nature are amorphous, individual, and likely to change fairly often. http://books.google.ca/books/about/Most_Dangerous_Branch.html?id=QBv8Ib8QOksC Edited February 16, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
GostHacked Posted February 16, 2015 Report Posted February 16, 2015 In short, I do not believe that the Supreme Courts of either of our lands should be legislating. They should be protecting peoples' rights against the tyranny of the majority, but not sculpting society. It's actually a tyranny of the minority. And they have been sculpting society for decades. The SCC is not about making legislation, it is about making sure the legislation respects the rights and freedoms of Canadians. Our senate/parliament writes the legislation. Quote
GostHacked Posted February 16, 2015 Report Posted February 16, 2015 We need elected judges asap before the socialist bench we have now totally destroys Canada. Or just the ones Harper appointed to the bench that are now going against him? Quote
Argus Posted February 16, 2015 Report Posted February 16, 2015 It's actually a tyranny of the minority. And they have been sculpting society for decades. The SCC is not about making legislation, it is about making sure the legislation respects the rights and freedoms of Canadians. Our senate/parliament writes the legislation. And the judges then re-write it according to what they don't like. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
GostHacked Posted February 16, 2015 Report Posted February 16, 2015 And the judges then re-write it according to what they don't like. I agree it is a problem. And that goes back to my other issue with language used in making legislation. To me this indicates the problem is systemic and actually practiced by those in power. Quote
GostHacked Posted February 16, 2015 Report Posted February 16, 2015 This is serious. The judges are selling out Canada. They are trying to destroy it. Perhaps we can try them for treason. Only if you are willing to put your man Harper on the spot. If you want to get to the bottom of it, you might be surprised as who the real players are. Willing to have your worldview shattered? Quote
GostHacked Posted February 16, 2015 Report Posted February 16, 2015 Harper is not my perfect PM, far from it. He's not right wing enough for me. Not even close. He's just the best we have had to vote for lately. It's hard to argue against that. We haven't had a stellar field to choose from the past few elections. Not right wing enough? That sounds ... radical. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 16, 2015 Report Posted February 16, 2015 And the judges then re-write it according to what they don't like. We are a lot better off with that than allowing Harper to write laws according to what he doesnt like. Quote
Argus Posted February 16, 2015 Report Posted February 16, 2015 We are a lot better off with that than allowing Harper to write laws according to what he doesnt like. No, we aren't. Harper needs to get re-elected. In fact, he's absolutely determined to get re-elected. That is the only real check to his authority in terms of law writing that we need. The members of the SC have no mandate and cannot be punished for any laws they write, or the effects of those laws. That makes it profoundly undemocratic. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
eyeball Posted February 16, 2015 Report Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) So now that the case has been made that our supreme courts are broken what is the proposed solution for fixing, reforming or getting rid of them entirely? Is it just me or does all this whining about the SC seem as loser-based as the whining about FPTP? Interestingly all the whining seems to swirl around a common center of discontent and two closely related things - the method of appointing or electing judges or representatives. I think there's a deeper unresolved issue afoot myself - a fundamental leak of faith and trust in the institutions of accountability and transparency in of our governing structures. Yes we need government to constrain human passions and desires but how do we constrain these in the people that govern us? Figure that out and I think a lot of the discontent would just evaporate because then it really would have little or nothing to be based on but the odd sour grape. Edited February 16, 2015 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
GostHacked Posted February 16, 2015 Report Posted February 16, 2015 Well said eyeball. Seems in line with my notion of one set of rules for us, and another for those who rule us. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 16, 2015 Report Posted February 16, 2015 No, we aren't. Harper needs to get re-elected. In fact, he's absolutely determined to get re-elected. That is the only real check to his authority in terms of law writing that we need. The members of the SC have no mandate and cannot be punished for any laws they write, or the effects of those laws. That makes it profoundly undemocratic. You are correct there, Harper does want to get re elected and to that end will try to pass laws that cater to his base, which is not the way I want laws to be crafted. Better an independent oversight that has the training and background to apply the constitution. Quote
Argus Posted February 16, 2015 Report Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) I think there's a deeper unresolved issue afoot myself - a fundamental leak of faith and trust in the institutions of accountability and transparency in of our governing structures. The point is the supreme court actually IS unaccountable, in any way, shape or form. Yes we need government to constrain human passions and desires but how do we constrain these in the people that govern us? Everyone in government reports to someone. Everyone has a boss that can cut them off at the knees, including the politicians who can ultimately be fired by the electorate. The exception is the supreme court. I'm not sure what the answer is. I know Conrad Black wants Saskatchewan and Ottawa to immediately use the notwithstanding clause to get around the court's finding of a 'right to strike'. Maybe using that clause a little more would be a good idea to put a 'check and balance' on an unaccountable court. Edited February 16, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 16, 2015 Report Posted February 16, 2015 You are correct there, Harper does want to get re elected and to that end will try to pass laws that cater to his base, which is not the way I want laws to be crafted. Better an independent oversight that has the training and background to apply the constitution. The 'base' does not elect Harper. In fact, 'the base' is not who he needs to sway. They are, after all 'the base'. They're not likely to vote for the Liberals or NDP. Besides, 'the base' for the Tories contains many people who want small government and less intrusion into our lives by government, and are not likely to welcome stifling laws. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
TimG Posted February 16, 2015 Report Posted February 16, 2015 Maybe using that clause a little more would be a good idea to put a 'check and balance' on an unaccountable court.The Notwithstanding Clause was not used because in the past the court was generally respected and politicians knew that. It would be ironic if the court's social justice crusade turned enough people against the SCC that politicians no longer felt that they needed to avoid using the Notwithstanding Clause. Quote
jacee Posted February 16, 2015 Report Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) The point is the supreme court actually IS unaccountable, in any way, shape or form. Everyone in government reports to someone. Everyone has a boss that can cut them off at the knees, including the politicians who can ultimately be fired by the electorate. The exception is the supreme court. I'm not sure what the answer is. I know Conrad Black wants Saskatchewan and Ottawa to immediately use the notwithstanding clause to get around the court's finding of a 'right to strike'. Maybe using that clause a little more would be a good idea to put a 'check and balance' on an unaccountable court. Not entirely unaccountable:http://www.fja.gc.ca/appointments-nominations/considerations-eng.html Judges hold office during good behaviour, and are removable from office only for cause. Complaints made against members of the judiciary are subject to investigation by the Canadian Judicial Council, a body comprised of all federally appointed Chief Justices, Associate Chief Justices of the provinces and Senior Judges of the Territories and presided over by the Chief Justice of Canada. The role and the functions of the Canadian Judicial Council are set out in Part II of the Judges Act. A judge may be suspended from his or her judicial duties by the Chief Justice of the court pending completion of an inquiry by the Council into the conduct giving rise to a complaint. However, the salary of the judge is guaranteed by the constitution, and cannot be withheld. Where the Council makes a finding of misconduct, it may make a recommendation to the Minister of Justice for removal from office. A judge may be removed only upon a joint address of the Senate and House of Commons to the Governor General. A PM can't just remove justices because he doesn't like their rulings, but there is a process. . Edited February 16, 2015 by jacee Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 16, 2015 Report Posted February 16, 2015 The 'base' does not elect Harper. In fact, 'the base' is not who he needs to sway. They are, after all 'the base'. They're not likely to vote for the Liberals or NDP. Besides, 'the base' for the Tories contains many people who want small government and less intrusion into our lives by government, and are not likely to welcome stifling laws. The base is exactly who does elect Harper and they tend to be of course conservative and often with a religious slant. They dont like assisted suicide for instance, which is why he allowed his minister to put a ban on it which has been struck down. And they are probably not fond of Muslims becoming Canadians (where have I heard that recently) especially wearing traditional head gear, which is why he plans to challenge the SC yet again. Still think he doesnt play to his base. Quote
The_Squid Posted February 16, 2015 Report Posted February 16, 2015 The Notwithstanding Clause was not used because in the past the court was generally respected and politicians knew that. It would be ironic if the court's social justice crusade turned enough people against the SCC that politicians no longer felt that they needed to avoid using the Notwithstanding Clause. Please... tell us how a Harper appointed court is on a "social justice crusade". Isn't it more likely that these judges are simply making rulings based on the laws and Constitution of Canada? It seems to me that the court is neither "left" or "right" but is making judgments based on law and the Constitutionality of laws. Calling them "social activists" is total hyperbole given who has appointed them to the SC! Again, why couldn't Harper find a single judge who would agree with him on anything? Isn't it more likely that Harper is a problem, rather than every one of his appointments? Quote
jbg Posted February 16, 2015 Author Report Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) We need elected judges asap before the socialist bench we have now totally destroys Canada.We have those in New York. Trust me, you don't want those. Edited February 16, 2015 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jacee Posted February 16, 2015 Report Posted February 16, 2015 We have those in New York. Trust me, you don't want those. Agreed. Last thing we need are politicians masquerading as impartial judges. . Quote
jbg Posted February 17, 2015 Author Report Posted February 17, 2015 Agreed. Last thing we need are politicians masquerading as impartial judges. . It's worse than that. The constraints of the Rules of Professional Responsibility prohibit my stating, in detail, the reasons and depths of my dislike of elected state court judges. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jacee Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 It's worse than that. The constraints of the Rules of Professional Responsibility prohibit my stating, in detail, the reasons and depths of my dislike of elected state court judges. Can you point to any links on the topic? Quote
jbg Posted February 17, 2015 Author Report Posted February 17, 2015 Can you point to any links on the topic?I will look but in general I am obligated not to show disrespect for the judiciary. It's not a bright line rule but one of prudence. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jacee Posted February 17, 2015 Report Posted February 17, 2015 I will look but in general I am obligated not to show disrespect for the judiciary. It's not a bright line rule but one of prudence. No problem. I'm sure someone who thinks it's a good idea can google check it himself. Quote
jbg Posted February 17, 2015 Author Report Posted February 17, 2015 No problem. I'm sure someone who thinks it's a good idea can google check it himself.The problem is that the links are to the entire professional rules. I can supply that readily. It's the rules and their construction that you really need. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
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.