Canada Supreme Court Rules Against Harper Again

[Argus]

Nadon was ineligible to sit on the SC, plain and simple.

The two former SC judges they consulted ahead of time said otherwise. It is not so cut and dried.

And I don't believe the SC should have a veto on who gets appointed to its ranks.

[Argus]

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

I'm confused. Isn't he merely paraphrasing much of what you said yourself in your first post?

So when the opponents of any Government cheer a court's reversal of an unpopular law, and build up the court's esteem to absurdly high levels, I think they do as much damage as a Government attacking and casting dispersions upon a court that reverses their legislation.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Argus

[guyser]

It is time for bev to step down. She is making this personal.

Link?

And I see now the SC has said that a town in que can no longer say a prayer before meetings

Link?

. 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.

Link?

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.

Link?

This should be fun.

[Argus]

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

No, they were retroactively interpreted to not allow him in.

[On Guard for Thee]

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.

Um, who made it personal.....that would be your Mr. Harper with his comments directed at Mclachlin. The quebec issue comes after a court challenge from someone who likes to attend the council meetings but didnt want to have to pay respect to one religion over another. He claims to be an atheist so why should he have to. Im waiting to see if Harper gets silly again after this latest smackdown.

[On Guard for Thee]

No, they were retroactively interpreted to not allow him in.

No, Harper tried to retroactively amend the act by burying it in a budget bill (sound familiar) to allow him in.

[Spiderfish]

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?

Claiming this legislation is cruel and unusual punishment that violates the charter is disingenuous at best, and proposing such to lend support to their ruling is bogus. Believe me, as a gun owner I value protection from laws that could be used potentially as a violation of rights. In this case, I am not at all concerned as there appears to be no credible evidence that this legislation could be used as such. A third of the justices could also not see how any hypothetical scenario put forward to support the ruling could be credible.

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.

I agree, the fact that this is an election year will likely temper Harper from going there. Perhaps this is why we are seeing the SCC so willing to engage in the manipulation and direction of government social policy recently (of course, SCC justices would never base judicial action on personal social motivations).

Edited April 15, 2015 by Spiderfish

[guyser]

No, they were retroactively interpreted to not allow him in.

Argus, categorically untrue.

The appointment was announced, subsequently challenged, and the government then sought to amend the law retroactively by tacking amendments on to the end of a budget bill that it hurried through parliament. Today, as the court declared, some of these changes are both outside parliament’s authority and require constitutional amendment

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/irwin-cotler-marc-nadons-supreme-court-rejection-was-unprecedented-but-foreseeable

Edited April 15, 2015 by Guyser2

[ToadBrother]

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.

Exactly. One of the Court's hypothetical scenarios was prosecutors using the law to force accused individuals into plea agreements. Despite the efforts of some Tory supporters, this hypothetical situation does not strike as being quite as far fetched as spotting Elvis in a UFO.

[ToadBrother]

I'm confused. Isn't he merely paraphrasing much of what you said yourself in your first post?

So when the opponents of any Government cheer a court's reversal of an unpopular law, and build up the court's esteem to absurdly high levels, I think they do as much damage as a Government attacking and casting dispersions upon a court that reverses their legislation.

Of course, you mined out one part of my post, ignoring the other parts that took the Tories' for task for doing the exact opposite; turning the Supreme Court into the latest victimizer of long-suffering and long-abused Tories.

[cybercoma]

Exactly, within their ruling, the SCC had no issue with the three year sentences (as there are already), as gun crimes are felonies (under the Criminal Code/Firearms Act), the contention was with the allowance of gun crimes resulting in summary convictions.

Aren't you a member of the gun lobby? And wasn't it the gun lobby who was against the mandatory minimum because someone whose license lapses, but just hadn't had an opportunity to renew would now be facing a mandatory minimum sentence for the "crime" of having their license expire?

[cybercoma]

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

Sure, except we're putting shingles down and he's hammering in a nail on the deck.

[cybercoma]

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.

Not familiar with the word "disenfranchise," eh?

[jacee]

So when the opponents of any Government cheer a court's reversal of an unpopular law, and build up the court's esteem to absurdly high levels, I think they do as much damage as a Government attacking and casting dispersions upon a court that reverses their legislation.

So ... we should all shut up, not exercise our freedom of expression? :/

.

[dre]

I dont know much about this case really but Im wondering why there is any issue here?

Cant the government just add an amendment to the law to deal specifically with the courts concerns (hypothetical scenarios)?

[On Guard for Thee]

Or just leave well enough alone. The gun crime rate (among most others) has been falling in Canada for decades. All this tough on crime crap Harper is touting is a thinly veiled attempt to garner votes among that portion of their base who may not be aware of the stats. Ya know, granny watches the 24 hr news cycle and gets the idea crime is rampant.

[ToadBrother]

Or just leave well enough alone. The gun crime rate (among most others) has been falling in Canada for decades. All this tough on crime crap Harper is touting is a thinly veiled attempt to garner votes among that portion of their base who may not be aware of the stats. Ya know, granny watches the 24 hr news cycle and gets the idea crime is rampant.

That certainly factored in to the ruling. The tough on crime amendments by and large seem to be fixing a problem that has been steadily declining for years, if not decades.

[Bryan]

Not familiar with the word "disenfranchise," eh?

Fully. And the electorate is the remedy. People who previously didn't have rights (including voting) were granted them by the people who did. A party that tries to remove those rights from a given group would have the rest of the electorate tell them how they feel about that in the next election.

[Spiderfish]

Or just leave well enough alone. The gun crime rate (among most others) has been falling in Canada for decades.

I thought you were worried about an increase in gun crime in this country...

Unfortunately nowadays people are using guns for a lot more odious travails than bagging a rabbit or a partridge. Sad of course but we need to protect ourselves from that reality as best we can.

If you own a gun through the registry and decide to sell it illegally, it can be traced right back to you. A gun license does not do that. With a gun license I can buy 50 guns, well them to whoever and not worry. Next thing you know we start heading down the US path and kids start getting blown away at school, etc.

I would have suspected that those who are worried about increased gun violence who have shown support for stricter gun laws would welcome this legislation.

[TimG]

That certainly factored in to the ruling. The tough on crime amendments by and large seem to be fixing a problem that has been steadily declining for years, if not decades.

Then why didn't the SCC strike down the gun registry as a unnecessary expense? Seems to me you can't logically be in favour of a court disallowing laws because of lack of need only when you disagree with the law.

[jacee]

Fully. And the electorate is the remedy. People who previously didn't have rights (including voting) were granted them by the people who did. A party that tries to remove those rights from a given group would have the rest of the electorate tell them how they feel about that in the next election.

Oh I doubt we'd wait. Freedom of expression is available to us anytime, you know.

.

[On Guard for Thee]

I thought you were worried about an increase in gun crime in this country...

I would have suspected that those who are worried about increased gun violence who have shown support for stricter gun laws would welcome this legislation.

As I pointed out, there is no increase in gun crimes in Canada, actually a constant decrease, which I suspect is in part due to gun controls such as background checks, so called cooling off periods etc. Nothing to do with what was contained in what the SC struck down.

Edited April 15, 2015 by On Guard for Thee

[Bryan]

Oh I doubt we'd wait. Freedom of expression is available to us anytime, you know.

.

Expression is not necessarily translated into action.

[Argus]

Of course, you mined out one part of my post, ignoring the other parts that took the Tories' for task for doing the exact opposite; turning the Supreme Court into the latest victimizer of long-suffering and long-abused Tories.

I mined out what basically agreed with what he said which you just condemned him for. I could just as easily have also included much more of your post:

It strikes me that in the last decade of Tory rule, the government's own opponents have reacted to the Government's own tendency for stridency and legislative hyperbole by become more strident and hyperbolic in their own way. Opponents inside and outside Parliament are more prone to see evil behind every bill, and are beginning to develop this expectation that other branches of government somehow have some overarching authority to overrule the Government. It happened a year or so ago, when native protesters began demanding meetings with the Governor General, as if he had some special constitutional authority to override the Government simply because they were unhappy. And we see it in the way that the Supreme Court has been built up into a sort of Court of Vetoes, whereby Parliament should be reduced far below its station. No one seems to fully comprehend that offices like the Governor General and Supreme Court justice are appointed, and that while those offices hold enormous powers to override Parliament and the Government, that they, like the Senate, lack the democratic legitimacy that the House of Commons and the provincial assemblies possess.

[Argus]

So ... we should all shut up, not exercise our freedom of expression? :/

.

We should support democratic institutions and not desperately seek ways to get appointees to overrule the people we voted for.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Argus