cybercoma Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) The notwithstanding clause is not a get out of jail ticket. It's only valid on certain issues. And of course, it's a public relations issue which a government as timid as Harper's is wary of going near. I think the issue of essential services, however, would be one they could use it on and get away with it. I think they ought to, but it's not their case, as yet. Saskatchewan was the province affected. It ought to use the notwithstanding clause. If the CN rail has a strike, which the union is threatening, and if the courts stand in the way of legislating them back to work, I would hope they would use the notwithstanding clause. The point is that the judges don't write laws. Period. Even their decisions can be rendered moot by the notwithstanding clause. Whether the legislatures choose to use it or not is irrelevant. Edited February 20, 2015 by cybercoma Quote
Argus Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 Besides being part of the Canadian Constitution, the supreme court is part of our culture and part of the fabric of our society. He's right. If you don't like it, perhaps you should go live somewhere else. It might be a part of your society, bud, but when I grew up the Supreme Court was just a court. It didn't create our laws and didn't strive to change society. So if it's all the same to you and your anti-democratic ideals, I'll continue to complain about the new, aggressively activist court. 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 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 Another interesting opinion. Even the Supreme Court’s friends are starting to get nervous at the gay abandon with which our highest court sweeps aside the annoying resistance of mere elected governments to its increasingly imperious will. But the real long-term damage being done isn’t in this or that decision over the right to strike, assisted suicide, national securities regulators, Senate reform or who is entitled to sit on the court. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/rob-insight/supreme-courts-imperious-willinjects-a-new-source-of-instability/article23087422/ 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 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 The point is that the judges don't write laws. Period. They create law, though, so despite your technical objection, the point still stands. 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
cybercoma Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 They create law, though, so despite your technical objection, the point still stands.You've not once established that. The Supreme Court created NOTHING here. They struck down a law because it wasn't legally valid within the framework of the existing constitution. The SCC created absolutely nothing. Oh, but you have me on ignore because you don't like facing your ignorance. Quote
marcus Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 It might be a part of your society, bud, but when I grew up the Supreme Court was just a court. It didn't create our laws and didn't strive to change society. So if it's all the same to you and your anti-democratic ideals, I'll continue to complain about the new, aggressively activist court. Unless you were born before 1867, then the Supreme Court has been around for your entire life. The Supreme Court is part of our constitution. Anyone with your disdain and contempt for our constitution, laws and culture should think about moving to another country where people share similar views with you. We don't want people who hate our laws and culture living in our country. Quote "What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.
Argus Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 Unless you were born before 1867, then the Supreme Court has been around for your entire life. The SC has changed considerably since the Charter was signed in 1982. Anyone with your disdain and contempt for our constitution, laws and culture should think about moving to another country where people share similar views with you. We don't want people who hate our laws and culture living in our country. That's pretty rich coming from a Jew hater like you. 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
marcus Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 The SC has changed considerably since the Charter was signed in 1982. Rules are rules. The Supreme Court's role is part of our Constitution. You don't like our Constitution? Leave and go to another country. Quote "What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.
Argus Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 Rules are rules. The Supreme Court's role is part of our Constitution. You don't like our Constitution? Leave and go to another country. I don't like our constitution. And therefore, given this is a democracy and that fringe anti-semite types haven't yet managed to elect a government which will put people in concentration camps for different thoughts and beliefs, I will continue to dislike it. 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
On Guard for Thee Posted February 20, 2015 Report Posted February 20, 2015 The notwithstanding clause is not a get out of jail ticket. It's only valid on certain issues. And of course, it's a public relations issue which a government as timid as Harper's is wary of going near. I think the issue of essential services, however, would be one they could use it on and get away with it. I think they ought to, but it's not their case, as yet. Saskatchewan was the province affected. It ought to use the notwithstanding clause. If the CN rail has a strike, which the union is threatening, and if the courts stand in the way of legislating them back to work, I would hope they would use the notwithstanding clause. Harper timid, now thats funny. Quote
Argus Posted February 21, 2015 Report Posted February 21, 2015 Harper timid, now thats funny. You don't follow politics much, do you? Harper has always been timid about public opinion and risk. It's why he does so little. 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
On Guard for Thee Posted February 21, 2015 Report Posted February 21, 2015 You don't follow politics much, do you? Harper has always been timid about public opinion and risk. It's why he does so little. I follow it regularly, which is why I know timidity is far from what he is. Quote
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.