Canada Supreme Court Rules Against Harper Again

[guyser]

Absolutely not. They should be required to enforce the laws as they are written. If the voters disagree with their decision, by definition that decision is wrong and should be over-ruled.

No only NO , but hell NO to an elected judiciary.

One only need look just outside our borders for a complete F up that occursw with elected judges.

Judges need to be above the fray and make sound decisions that are right....not just popular.

[guyser]

To put it in your baseball terms: it is like a game a baseball where the rule book says there is a difference between a ball and a strike but does specify how to determine a ball or a strike and instead leaves it up to the umpire to determine whether any given pitch is a strike or not. This leads to a situation where the pitchers and batters find that the strike zone changes depending on who the ump is.

That is how baeball operates.

The strike zone is moveable and changes from ump to ump. If we had three umps behind plate then some of them wont agree.

But at the end of the day the Umps are judged and if they are keeping within the spirit of the game then all is good.

The SCC judges have reviews and if they are in the zone then all is ok.

So thanks for the analogy, it bolsters the point that elcted judges are the dumbest idea this country could ever take.

[guyser]

Other times it is partisan dreck (the ruling on the Nadon appointment was the worst).

What a crock.

You have an issue with the Nadon decision? The one that was voted 6-1 margin because Nadon did not hold any of the three requirements HAS TO HAVE?

Yea....I will put you down to whiny righty who didnt get his way.

Good grief!

[TimG]

You have an issue with the Nadon decision? The one that was voted 6-1 margin because Nadon did not hold any of the three requirements HAS TO HAVE?

Clearly you have no clue what the decision was based on and you are simply parotting talking points you have been fed.

The SCC in this case based its decision on a bizarre interpretation of the words "from among the advocates of that Province" that excludes former members of Quebec bar despite the fact that it is well established that former members of the bar are eligible for SCC appointments (it is bizarre to claim that former members of the bar are eligible for all provinces except Quebec).

The word "among" does not in any way imply "current" yet that is what the SCC decided which is why it was basically a decision based on the fact that court did not like Nadon. It is a BS decision because it illustrates how the judges feel their personal biases are more important than what spirit of the law is.

Edited April 15, 2015 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

Clearly you have no clue what the decision was based on and you are simply parotting talking points you have been fed.

The SCC in this case based its decision on a bizarre interpretation of the words "from among the advocates of that Province" that excludes former members of Quebec bar despite the fact that it is well established that former members of the bar are eligible for SCC appointments (it is bizarre to claim that former members of the bar are eligible for all provinces except Quebec).

The word "among" does not in any way imply "current" yet that is what the SCC decided which is why it was basically a decision based on the fact that court did not like Nadon. It is a BS decision because it illustrates how the judges feel their personal biases are more important than what spirit of the law is.

I have my issues with the Nadon case, but I'm getting the sense that for you "the spirit of the law" is defined as "whatever the Tories feel".

[Spiderfish]

Its the 3 and 5 year MMS that the SC threw out. Basically what they are saying is what hasnt happened, should continue to not happen.

The 3 and 5 year mandatory minimums are never and have never been handed out for minor gun licensing and handling infractions as they are prosecuted summarily. The mandatory minimums only apply to indictable offenses.

Basically what one third of the SC justices said is that they should not be second guessing the choices of our elected representatives when it comes to the matter of drafting public safety policy, and using non-credible hypothetical situations to support such an action is dubious.

The SCC seems to be daring the Government to invoke the notwithstanding clause with rulings such as this.

[guyser]

Clearly you have no clue what the decision was based on and you are simply parotting talking points you have been fed.

No sir , it is you who is whining since it didnt work out for you nor Harper.

The Supreme Court Act requires that nominees for one of Quebec’s three seats on the high court be either a member of the provincial bar, a member of the province’s Superior Court or a judge on the Quebec Court of Appeals. The top court said a Supreme Court nominee from the province had to be a current member of any of those bodies, which Nadon was not.

The reasoning for the strict requirements is to ensure the top court has expertise in the province’s civil code and “that Quebec’s distinct legal and social values are represented in the court, thereby enhancing the confidence of the people of Quebec in the Supreme Court.”

[On Guard for Thee]

The 3 and 5 year mandatory minimums are never and have never been handed out for minor gun licensing and handling infractions as they are prosecuted summarily. The mandatory minimums only apply to indictable offenses.

Basically what one third of the SC justices said is that they should not be second guessing the choices of our elected representatives when it comes to the matter of drafting public safety policy, and using non-credible hypothetical situations to support such an action is dubious.

The SCC seems to be daring the Government to invoke the notwithstanding clause with rulings such as this.

Once again, as has already been pointed out here, if the courts didnt make this ruling you could have found yourself off to jail for 3 years for having the ammo in the wrong room. The court has to look at the issue not from the perspective of what hasnt happened, but what could happen.

[Argus]

But they are accountable. The can be removed and any judgment can be reviewed.

Come on. Realistically you know that's no true. The Supreme Court is accountable to no one.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Argus

[TimG]

I have my issues with the Nadon case, but I'm getting the sense that for you "the spirit of the law" is defined as "whatever the Tories feel".

I have a bias against any ruling that mandates spending on the part of government. i.e. the SCC has no business telling the government how to prioritize spending even if it wants to rule about what it should do if money was infinite.

Outside of that I look at each case. In the Nadon case it is pretty clear that the spirit of the law it to ensure Quebec appointees understand the unique Quebec civil code. This spirit can be met by current or former members of the bar. The ruling that word "among" means only current members of a Quebec bar was an interpretation they made up because they wanted to block the Nadon appointment. It has nothing to do with preserving the spirit of the law.

Edited April 15, 2015 by TimG

[Keepitsimple]

Its the 3 and 5 year MMS that the SC threw out. Basically what they are saying is what hasnt happened, should continue to not happen.

If that's the case, I can't make sense of their ruling at all. In one breath they are saying that prosecutors must be doing an excellent job - since none of these hypothetical cases have ever actually occurred going all the way back to 1995. But in another breath, they are saying there's a risk that these hypotheticals - and others - will start popping up. In fact, they have simply made up stories that going forward, question the integrity of prosecutors (for the people) and their prosecutory discretion. The safeguard against prosecutorial mis-conduct has always been - and will continue to be - the judicial appeal process. If any of these non-occurring, hypothetical cases came under appeal - then the appeal courts could choose to overturn the verdict on the correct grounds of "cruel and unusual punishment".

It is not the role of the SCC to determine if minimum sentences work - or not. It is their job to verify that the cases brought before them are consitutional. Clearly, they were - admittedly so. In my opinion, they should have upheld the law and issued a caution that their hypothetical cases would likely be subject to appeal - should a prosecutor ever decide to charge someone in those cases.

[Argus]

No sir , it is you who is whining since it didnt work out for you nor Harper.

Or for Canada.

[Argus]

I think John Ivison is usually pretty reasonable and had a sensible take on this.

When three such eminent jurists as Justices Rothstein, Moldaver and Wagner warn in such forceful terms that the Court has overstepped its bounds, we are in precarious constitutional territory.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-rejection-of-mandatory-minimum-law-for-gun-crimes-confirms-supremes-politicization

Edited April 15, 2015 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

The 3 and 5 year mandatory minimums are never and have never been handed out for minor gun licensing and handling infractions as they are prosecuted summarily. The mandatory minimums only apply to indictable offenses.

Basically what one third of the SC justices said is that they should not be second guessing the choices of our elected representatives when it comes to the matter of drafting public safety policy, and using non-credible hypothetical situations to support such an action is dubious.

The SCC seems to be daring the Government to invoke the notwithstanding clause with rulings such as this.

Of course courts have to second guess elected officials. That's the courts job, particularly when dealing with constitutional issues. Since it is the legislation itself that is being called into question, how is it your propose any constitutional court test the constitutionality, if the only power it should invoke is to defer to the legislative branch?

And the Tories may rail on against the Supreme Court, but Stephen Harper, whatever his flaws, is no fool, and knows that the political penalty to be paid for invoking Section 33 would be too great.

What I will concede is the Court, likely not intentionally, is giving the Tories their new version of "We're the poor victims" chant, which they have used so successfully over the last ten years.

[Shady]

Or for Canada.

Their hated for Harper is so deep that they'd put the wellbeing of Canada behind a chance to degrade the man or his government.

[ToadBrother]

Come on. Realistically you know that's no true. The Supreme Court is accountable to no one.

Justices can be removed, rulings can be revisited. Sounds like accountability to me. But yes, the Judicial branch, as it is in many countries, maintains the independence necessary to do its job.

[On Guard for Thee]

Nadon was ineligible to sit on the SC, plain and simple. Harper actually tried to change the Supreme Court Act with a budget bill of all things, which again, was unconstitutional. And apparently he hasnt learned any lesson from it yet.

[ToadBrother]

Their hated for Harper is so deep that they'd put the wellbeing of Canada behind a chance to degrade the man or his government.

And here goes the Tory "We are the poor victims of the evil liberal establishment..."

[Shady]

And here goes the Tory "We are the poor victims of the evil liberal establishment..."

No, I'm just talking about certain people of the forum.

[guyser]

Their hated for Harper is so deep that they'd put the wellbeing of Canada behind a chance to degrade the man or his government.

Oh man....so Harper trying to retroactively changing the rules is good governance?

You stepped in it, go clean off your shoe.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Guyser2

[guyser]

Or for Canada.

Worked out fine for Canada. The rules werent retroactively changed to allow this man in.

NO ONE is saying this guy doesnt have the wherewithall, it is just that he wasnt a member of any of the three he HAD to be in order for the appt to proceed.

Our IT guy here has no formal IT education. MAn can fix every damn problem pretty handily.

He could not get a job in a upper echelon IT environment though, even if his smarts are on par or superior to those already there.

[On Guard for Thee]

If that's the case, I can't make sense of their ruling at all. In one breath they are saying that prosecutors must be doing an excellent job - since none of these hypothetical cases have ever actually occurred going all the way back to 1995. But in another breath, they are saying there's a risk that these hypotheticals - and others - will start popping up. In fact, they have simply made up stories that going forward, question the integrity of prosecutors (for the people) and their prosecutory discretion. The safeguard against prosecutorial mis-conduct has always been - and will continue to be - the judicial appeal process. If any of these non-occurring, hypothetical cases came under appeal - then the appeal courts could choose to overturn the verdict on the correct grounds of "cruel and unusual punishment".

It is not the role of the SCC to determine if minimum sentences work - or not. It is their job to verify that the cases brought before them are consitutional. Clearly, they were - admittedly so. In my opinion, they should have upheld the law and issued a caution that their hypothetical cases would likely be subject to appeal - should a prosecutor ever decide to charge someone in those cases.

You can appeal a conviction, but not a charge. Prosecutorial discretion needs to reflect the charter and that is what the SC has tried to ensure with this ruling.

[Spiderfish]

Once again, as has already been pointed out here, if the courts didnt make this ruling you could have found yourself off to jail for 3 years for having the ammo in the wrong room. The court has to look at the issue not from the perspective of what hasnt happened, but what could happen.

If you are unable to understand that simply storing ammunition in the wrong room is an offense that neither has ever been, or can be prosecuted as an indictable offense, then there is no point continuing to debate. Manufacturing a circumstance where someone could or would be sentenced 3 years for improper ammunition storage is so far detached from legal precedent, it strains credibility.

[PIK]

It is time for bev to step down. She is making this personal. And I see now the SC has said that a town in que can no longer say a prayer before meetings. These judges had gone to far and IMO I though parliament made the rules not unelected judges. But I see this helping harper in BC where shootings are out of control between the Somalis and some other group. And Ottawa where shooting are out of control also. So laugh all you want liberals , this may blow up in your face. Just like the gun registry.

Edited April 15, 2015 by PIK

[On Guard for Thee]

If you are unable to understand that simply storing ammunition in the wrong room is an offense that neither has ever been, or can be prosecuted as an indictable offense, then there is no point continuing to debate. Manufacturing a circumstance where someone could or would be sentenced 3 years for improper ammunition storage is so far detached from legal precedent, it strains credibility.

Well, you see, now you dont have to worry about it at all. The SC has taken care of even the remote possibility. Kinda their job dontcha know.