Canada Supreme Court Rules Against Harper Again

[Je suis Omar]

Then, an elected judiciary, and a regularly invoked notwithstanding clause (that must be renewed every election cycle).

What a marvellous idea, Bryan. Put the independence of the judiciary in the hands of a bunch of tea partying Sarah Palins.

[On Guard for Thee]

First, a much stricter standard as to what really qualifies as a legitimate violation of rights. Too many of the cases we do see are utter BS that should never have been heard. The one referenced in this thread is a prime example of that.

Then, an elected judiciary, and a regularly invoked notwithstanding clause (that must be renewed every election cycle).

All one need do is look south of the border to see why not go to an elected judiciary.

[Je suis Omar]

The gun registry case was 5-4. You are not trying very hard if you cannot imagine a different result from a court composed of different judges. A few cases like the senate reference would be the exception as opposed to the rule.

You're big on wanting to jabber about inane conspiracies, Tim. You should be plumping for a discussion of how so much power was put into the hands of just nine people, Tim.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[On Guard for Thee]

You're big on wanting to jabber about inane conspiracies, Tom. You should be plumping for a discussion of how so much power was put into the hands of just nine people, Tim.

Of all people to be accusing anyone of jabbering on about inane conspiracies...OMG!

[Je suis Omar]

None of your post makes sense. First of all how can the court ruling be sound and naive at the same time. But thats just poor grammar.

Here we have, OGFT, your first dandy example of an editor who knows about grammar, commenting on grammar. I'll leave it to you to point out to us how it is "poor grammar".

And while you are at it, perhaps you might explain how you think Tim said what you wrote above.

Tim said, "Some times the logic is sound even if I think the court is naive about how the ruling will be interpreted."

Sensei, onegaishimasu.

[On Guard for Thee]

Here we have, OGFT, your first dandy example of an editor who knows about grammar, commenting on grammar. I'll leave it to you to point out to us how it is "poor grammar".

And while you are at it, perhaps you might explain how you think Tim said what you wrote above.

Tim said, "Some times the logic is sound even if I think the court is naive about how the ruling will be interpreted."

Sensei, onegaishimasu.

Conflicting evaluations.

[Je suis Omar]

Conflicting evaluations.

That's not got anything to do with grammar.

[Argus]

Really?

She looks pretty qualified to me.

http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/abella-rosalie-silberman

.

The only reason she was appointed was that Martin was about to refer the gay marriage thing to the SC, so he appointed her and another gay rights activist to stack the court.

[Argus]

Here we have, OGFT, your first dandy example of an editor who knows about grammar, commenting on grammar. I'll leave it to you to point out to us how it is "poor grammar".

Oh. A grammar flame. How... inspiring.

[Je suis Omar]

Oh. A grammar flame. How... inspiring.

Distorting the truth in plain view. That's just so typical of you, Argus. And you do it so well, with absolutely no sense of shame.

Let your acute sense of honesty lead you back to see who brought up the grammar issue.

[Je suis Omar]

My response to Argus removed in response to Michael Hardner's post that comes after this one.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Je suis Omar

[Michael Hardner]

Personal comments, again. Argus stated a point, so address it and not him, or leave it and move on.

[Michael Hardner]

Oh. A grammar flame. How... inspiring.

Moving on...

[The_Squid]

The only reason she was appointed was that Martin was about to refer the gay marriage thing to the SC, so he appointed her and another gay rights activist to stack the court.

And what gay rights activism has she done?

[PIK]

That is great some one else that was not born here with the power to tell us what to do.