Canada Supreme Court Rules Against Harper Again

[Derek 2.0]

You know, I bet I don't even have to check to know that pretty much everyone here happy with this decision was ranting about the evil Conservatives removing the long gun registry since you were so concerned about violent crime. Well, here's the supreme court being kind and forgiving to violent criminals with illegal weapons and you're standing on your feet applauding enthusiastically.

Nail. Head. Hammer........

[ToadBrother]

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.

In other words, you want to introduce mob rule, where the entire notion of the rule of law is thrown out in favor of mobocracy. Do you even under constitution is for and if you do what use would it be where the law is whatever the voters say it is? Edited April 15, 2015 by ToadBrother

[Bryan]

In other words, you want to introduce mob rule, where the entire notion of the rule of law is thrown out in favor of mobocracy. Do you even under constitution is for and if you do what use would it be where the law is whatever the voters say it is?

No, I want to live in a society that is not ruled by the binding totalitarian edicts of an unelected unaccountable group.

[On Guard for Thee]

I did. They used specious hypothetical possibilities.

By the way, you were a supporter of the long gun registry, weren't you?

They saw how this bill could contravene the constitution so they what they had to do. I do support gun laws. Done want to end up like the US.

[ToadBrother]

No, I want to live in a society that is not ruled by the binding totalitarian edicts of an unelected unaccountable group.

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

Again I ask you, what is the point of a constitution in your view if it can effectively be ignored if a majority of voters decide the law is whatever they say it is?

[On Guard for Thee]

No, I want to live in a society that is not ruled by the binding totalitarian edicts of an unelected unaccountable group.

A totalitarian state would be one in which the government could make the laws with no oversight. Be careful what you wish for.

[Wilber]

I am making the argument that if the Parliament had the best interests of Canadians in mind when writing law, we would not need an SCC. I understand the need for it, because not every one who is in government is on the up and up, including many PMs and party leaders.

One could use the same logic to eliminate the need for judges period. You also good with that?

[Bryan]

A totalitarian state would be one in which the government could make the laws with no oversight. Be careful what you wish for.

There is oversight. It's called an election. Democracy, maybe you've heard of it?

Edited April 15, 2015 by Bryan

[On Guard for Thee]

I did. They used specious hypothetical possibilities.

By the way, you were a supporter of the long gun registry, weren't you?

Hypothetical, perhaps, specious not at all.

[ToadBrother]

There is oversight. It's called an election. Democracy, maybe you've heard of it?

And if a Parliament decided to disenfrenchize sone group, what remedy would there be? Another group of politicians posing as judges?

[Bryan]

And if a Parliament decided to disenfrenchize sone group, what remedy would there be? Another group of politicians posing as judges?

The electorate is the remedy.

[On Guard for Thee]

There is oversight. It's called an election. Democracy, maybe you've heard of it?

Yes there is oversight, but its called the SCC. If you think you want to live in a country where every time an election occurred the ruling parties could swing laws this way and then back that way without any oversight, I suspect you would find it quite disruptive. I think you are just unhappy because its your buddy Harper who cant see to get his s**t together and so keeps on getting a smackdown.

[ToadBrother]

Hypothetical, perhaps, specious not at all.

Constitutional questions almost inevitably have a hypothetical element. A bill of rights is inevitably designed to deal with future issues that are either hypothetical or unforseen. It would be a terrible constitution that left no room for interpretation.

[Bryan]

Yes there is oversight, but its called the SCC.

It's the SCC that needs the oversight.

[On Guard for Thee]

Constitutional questions almost inevitably have a hypothetical element. A bill of rights is inevitably designed to deal with future issues that are either hypothetical or unforseen. It would be a terrible constitution that left no room for interpretation.

Exactly. And thats the whole point some here seem to keep on missing. Its as simple as why you check the oil in your car before the engine seizes up. Preventative maintenance of the legal system I guess you could call it.

[On Guard for Thee]

It's the SCC that needs the oversight.

And who would you suggest, Merlin the sorcerer....

[Big Guy]

Our Supreme Court has the last say on issues in dispute.

There have been decisions coming from the Supreme Court with which I have disagreed.

The Umpire during a baseball game has the last say on whether a pitched baseball is a strike or a ball.

There have been Umpire decisions with which I have disagreed.

Without an Umpire having that authority, baseball would not exist.

Without our Supreme Court having that authority, or democracy would not exist.

[Bryan]

Without an Umpire having that authority, baseball would not exist.

Without our Supreme Court having that authority, or democracy would not exist.

Baseball rules can change, different leagues have different rules. Whatever they are THAT is what the umpire has to enforce. He does not get to decide that a given rule is "wrong" and strike it from the rules.

[Big Guy]

I was talking specifically about what is a "ball" or a "strike". There are guidelines as to the strike zone but what the umpire calls a strike is a strike. It may bounce a couple of times before it hits the plate but if the umpire calls it a strike then it is a strike. There has to be an ultimate decision maker who has the power (as agreed by both sides) to make the final decision.

The rules that our Supreme Court works from is the wording of our Constitution. The members cannot change the wording of that constitution but they can rule that some bill contravenes the wording and spirit of that Constitution.

When you become a Canadian citizen you promise to obey the laws of Canada. It is up to the Supreme Court to interpret the laws of Canada. It has the last word.

[TimG]

The rules that our Supreme Court works from is the wording of our Constitution. The members cannot change the wording of that constitution but they can rule that some bill contravenes the wording and spirit of that Constitution.

This is largely BS because the constitution does not have anything close to the level of detail required to determine which laws are valid or not. In 99% of the cases, the decision made by the SCC is an interpretation that reflects the ideological biases of the judges and it is very likely that a different set of judges at a different time would have come up with a different interpretation.

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.

Edited April 15, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

This is largely BS because the constitution does not have anything close to the level of detail required to determine which laws are valid or not. In 99% of the cases, the decision made by the SCC is an interpretation that reflects the ideological biases of the judges and it is very likely that a different set of judges at a different time would have come up with a different interpretation.

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.

You couldnt be more wrong. First of all if youre theory wasnt BS, then why do the very people who Harper appointed disagree with his attempts at law making so often. And to go to your baseball scheme, the rules (in this case the constitution) do define the difference between a ball and a strike. Of course its not quite as simple as simple as seeing if the ball was over the plate ad above the knees, which is why very knowledgeable people are appointed to be the SC empires.

[TimG]

You couldnt be more wrong.

Then why do SCC justices disagree? Seems to me that the fact that SCC justices often disagree is proof positive that there is no "correct" interpretation of the constitution and the SCC interpretations depend entirely on the biases of the unelected and unaccountable people on the SCC. Edited April 15, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Then why do SCC justices disagree? Seems to me that the fact that SCC justices often disagree is proof positive that there is no "correct" interpretation of the constitution and the SCC interpretations depend entirely on the biases of the unelected and unaccountable people on the SCC.

37% of Canadians agreed that Harper should be PM, but there he is. The SC works on a majority system, they dont have to all agree. But they do have to publish their reasons for their findings. That is their accountability. There are numerous reasons why they should remain unelected, and if you want to see why, just look to the USSC.

[TimG]

The SC works on a majority system, they dont have to all agree.

They don't agree because there is no "true" interpretation of the constitution. Any given ruling is simply a reflection of the ideology of the judges. Nothing more. Nothing less.

But they do have to publish their reasons for their findings. That is their accountability.

So what? Good lawyers can come up with logical arguments for just about anything. And even when their "reasons" are an obvious pile horse manure there is often no recourse which means there is no accountability. The one exception are charter cases which can can be overridden by the notwitstanding clause but that is not an option for cases involving other elements of the constitution. Edited April 15, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

They don't agree because there is no "true" interpretation of the constitution. Any given ruling is simply a reflection of the ideology of the judges. Nothing more. Nothing less.

So what? Good lawyers can come up with logical arguments for just about anything. And even when their "reasons" are an obvious pile horse manure there is often no recourse which means there is no accountability. The one exception are charter cases which can can be overridden by the notwitstanding clause but that is not an option for cases involving other elements of the constitution.

The reasons may be horse manure in your mind, but not in mine and I suspect most Canadians overall support the SC even if they happen to disagree with a certain ruling. You dont seem to see the need for a balance in law making. I suppose if it was Mulcairs laws being tossed out you would think it was fine because you dont support him. Thankfully we have that balance.