JT to Whip Assisted Suicide Vote

[TimG]

The Supreme Court doesn't make laws. It can strike down bad laws, which is what it did in this case.

It does not really apply in this case but the court has ruled on a number of occasions that compel the government to spend money in areas which are not a priority to the government. When the court interferes with the ability of governments to managed public finances then it is exceeding its constitutional mandate and effectively 'making laws'.

Furthermore, when the court suddenly decides to read a new meaning into old statutes that were never intended by the old statute it is, in effect, changing laws without legislative approval. This seems to be what they did in this case but they did not have to. They could have struck down the law and forced the government to re-write it but instead choose to re-interpret it in ways that will be enforced by the courts even if the government fails to act. When the court does these kinds of things it is effectively 'making laws' even if is not formally called that.

Edited February 24, 2016 by TimG

[The_Squid]

It does not really apply in this case but the court has ruled on a number of occasions that compel the government to spend money in areas which are not a priority to the government. When the court interferes with the ability of governments to managed public finances then it is exceeding its constitutional mandate and effectively 'making laws'.

That's your strange right-wing opinion maybe.... but saying that this is "making law" is just hyperbole on your part. They don't make laws.

Please give us an example of this, instead of some vague notion of the court "forcing the gov't to spend money".

Furthermore, when the court suddenly decides to read a new meaning into old statutes that were never intended by the old statute it is, in effect, changing laws without legislative approval. This seems to be what they did in this case but they did not have to. They could have struck down the law and forced the government to re-write it but instead choose to re-interpret it in ways that will be enforced by the courts even if the government fails to act. When the court does these kinds of things it is effectively 'making laws' even if is not formally called that.

I have no idea what you're talking about... the court did strike down the laws and the gov't must now write new legislation. If the gov't doesn't write new legislation, then there will be no laws concerning assisted suicide and the medical community would probably be forced to determine policy.

[On Guard for Thee]

As has already been pointed out, if the government does not table a replacement for the law the one struck down, the SCC provisions of their ruling will become the guiding principles, and will in all likelihood be codified into a national law, in which case the high court will have made law.

[The_Squid]

As has already been pointed out, if the government does not table a replacement for the law the one struck down, the SCC provisions of their ruling will become the guiding principles, and will in all likelihood be codified into a national law, in which case the high court will have made law.

Nope.

There will be no new laws made if there is no new legislation.

What does "codified into a national law" mean? Who will do this?

[On Guard for Thee]

Nope.

There will be no new laws made if there is no new legislation.

What does "codified into a national law" mean? Who will do this?

The legislature of course.

[The_Squid]

The legislature of course.

So the legislature would make a new law governing assisted suicide.

ummmm..... ok

So the courts don't make laws... the legislature does. Thanks for clearing that all up! lol

[On Guard for Thee]

So the legislature would make a new law governing assisted suicide.

ummmm..... ok

So the courts don't make laws... the legislature does. Thanks for clearing that all up! lol

Nope, the legislature would codify the scc finding. There's a difference.

And if they didn't, the laws of the various provinces would take effect, but the provisions of the SCC finding would apply. It would be a bit of a mess for sure.

Edited February 24, 2016 by On Guard for Thee

[TimG]

If the gov't doesn't write new legislation, then there will be no laws concerning assisted suicide and the medical community would probably be forced to determine policy.

The judgement says the law was 'suspended' - not struck down. The distinction is important because it means the old law remains in effect but the restrictions specified by the SCC will be applied to any cases put before lower courts even if the law has not changed. So, in effect, the court has rewritten laws passed by the legislature which exceeds its mandate. Edited February 24, 2016 by TimG

[The_Squid]

The judgement says the law was 'suspended' - not struck down. The distinction is important because it means the old law remains in effect but the restrictions specified by the SCC will be applied to any cases put before lower courts even if the law has not changed. So, in effect, the court has rewritten laws passed by the legislature which exceeds its mandate.

They often give the legislature time to write a new law to come into compliance. That doesn't mean they wrote the law.

[The_Squid]

Nope, the legislature would codify the scc finding. There's a difference.

And if they didn't, the laws of the various provinces would take effect, but the provisions of the SCC finding would apply. It would be a bit of a mess for sure.

The legislature would pass a new law ... it's not confusing. No need to spin things... it's OK to be mistaken.

[On Guard for Thee]

The judgement says the law was 'suspended' - not struck down. The distinction is important because it means the old law remains in effect but the restrictions specified by the SCC will be applied to any cases put before lower courts even if the law has not changed. So, in effect, the court has rewritten laws passed by the legislature which exceeds its mandate.

That is pretty well correct, and the mess would be that anyone who was charged under the old law would be able to appeal to any court, especially the SCC saying the charge was unconstitutional, and they would have a case.

[TimG]

They often give the legislature time to write a new law to come into compliance. That doesn't mean they wrote the law.

Not in this case. The law was not struck down so the new interpretation by the SCC will likely be recognized even if no new law is drafted.

I am saying there is no material difference between writing a new law and what the SCC does. The legal effects are the same.

Edited February 24, 2016 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

The legislature would pass a new law ... it's not confusing. No need to spin things... it's OK to be mistaken.

You're forgetting that in the case we are talking about, the legislature has already failed to pass a new law. Hence the scc provisions becoming the guiding light if you like. Complicated I realize.

Edited February 24, 2016 by On Guard for Thee

[cybercoma]

.

No, no, no...

The Supreme Court doesn't make laws. It can strike down bad laws, which is what it did in tghis case. You guys are dead wrong.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Canada

Caselaw are not separate laws.... they are interpretation/precedent of legislation (laws).

I'm a little dissapointed how little my fellow MLW forum members actually know about how legislation and the courts work in Canada.

This right here is correct. Precedents are guidelines for consistency in judicial decision making. They are not laws themselves, but directions for interpreting existing laws.

In the case of the SCC, they determine which legislation has legal validity against the charter of rights and freedoms and the constitution. They decide the validity of laws. They do not write new ones.

Edited February 24, 2016 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Not in this case. The law was not struck down so the new interpretation by the SCC will likely be recognized even if no new law is drafted.I am saying there is no material difference between writing a new law and what the SCC does. The legal effects are the same.

The SCC declaration was suspended, not the law. After 12 months the declaration nullifies the law against assisted suicide, namely when it meets the conditions of the case decision, ie, a competent adult who is suffering chooses to die and a physician helps. Physicians in those cases will not lose a trial that charges them under "aiding and abetting suicide." They shouldn't be charged in the first place, but that doesn't always happen. With no regulations, they can still be charged and a lawyer would have to argue their case in relation to this one. Edited February 24, 2016 by cybercoma

[Big Guy]

Different posters seem to have many different interpretations as to the role of our Supreme Court.

I believe that the court has many functions: Its major one is as a check and balance on government legislation. It serves to impartially decide on on the intent and wording of legislation and how it conforms to our Constitution. That is why the system works best when the ruling party presents legislation in parliament, allows the opposition parties to question the intent and wording of a bill (law), allows the Senate to take a final look at the wording and intent. Then the Supreme Court seldom has to get involved in new legislation. Our previous government rammed so many bills through as omnibus bills that they were never discussed or vented properly - either in parliament or the Senate.

Subsequently, many bills have been challenged and ended up in the Supreme Court for clarification.

The Supreme Court is now the only impartial body remaining (unless the Senate can be reformed) which can decide if the wording of a bill satisfies the intent and spirit of the legislature which passed the bills which also satisfy our Constitution.

Many decisions (and recommendations) of the Supreme Court lead to parliament passing reworded legislation which make its intentions clear.

Currently, we have no other impartial government body in a position to ensure that fervent political idealism does not run counter to our Constitution.

[Smallc]

Nope.

There will be no new laws made if there is no new legislation.

?

This is my understanding as well. I didn't know for sure so I didn't jump in.

[dre]

No, no, no...

The Supreme Court doesn't make laws. It can strike down bad laws, which is what it did in tghis case. You guys are dead wrong.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Canada

Caselaw are not separate laws.... they are interpretation/precedent of legislation (laws).

I'm a little dissapointed how little my fellow MLW forum members actually know about how legislation and the courts work in Canada.

The court did NOT just strike down this law. They also upheld the law in Quebec, and placed restrictions on when assisted suicide would be legal. And that ruling will be adopted by the entire judicial system as case-law even in the absence of any new statutes. They also specifically lay out the remedy for someone seeking assisted suicide once the ruling comes into effect... Take a case to the superior court.

And by upholding the Quebec law they also affirmed the right of provinces to craft their own solutions as long as they are in accordance with the restrictions in the ruling.

Edited February 24, 2016 by dre

[dre]

That is why the system works best when the ruling party presents legislation in parliament, allows the opposition parties to question the intent and wording of a bill (law), allows the Senate to take a final look at the wording and intent. Then the Supreme Court seldom has to get involved in new legislation.

The problem is nobody reads the legislation, and none of the bodies you mentioned have the expertise to write a document that stands up to legal scrutiny, and is free of ambiguity and leaves little need for interpretation.

Whats worse is that the ruling party often intentionally tries to avoid proper review by nesting new legislation inside gigantic omnibus bills.

Edited February 24, 2016 by dre

[Smallc]

The court did NOT just strike down this law. They also upheld the law in Quebec, and placed restrictions on when assisted suicide would be legal. And that ruling will be adopted by the entire judicial system as case-law even in the absence of any new statutes. They also specifically lay out the remedy for someone seeking assisted suicide once the ruling comes into effect... Take a case to the superior court.

And by upholding the Quebec law they also affirmed the right of provinces to craft their own solutions as long as they are in accordance with the restrictions in the ruling.

The court cannot create new laws. They can strike down laws or parts of laws. As of June 6th, unless a new law replaces the old one, there is no federal law.

[On Guard for Thee]

The SCC declaration was suspended, not the law. After 12 months the declaration nullifies the law against assisted suicide, namely when it meets the conditions of the case decision, ie, a competent adult who is suffering chooses to die and a physician helps. Physicians in those cases will not lose a trial that charges them under "aiding and abetting suicide." They shouldn't be charged in the first place, but that doesn't always happen. With no regulations, they can still be charged and a lawyer would have to argue their case in relation to this one.

Actually after the now 4 month extension, if no new law is enacted, technically the old one would go back into force. However any attempt to charge under it would likely be thrown out due to the previous SCC finding on violation of sect.7 of the charter, and the restrictions of the previous finding would stand.

[TimG]

The SCC declaration was suspended, not the law. After 12 months the declaration nullifies the law against assisted suicide, namely when it meets the conditions of the case decision, ie, a competent adult who is suffering chooses to die and a physician helps.

Ok.

Physicians in those cases will not lose a trial that charges them under "aiding and abetting suicide." They shouldn't be charged in the first place, but that doesn't always happen. With no regulations, they can still be charged and a lawyer would have to argue their case in relation to this one.

IOW, there would eventually be test cases which define the practical limits of the law. However, it still leaves a legal limbo. It would have been preferable if the law was struck down entirely like it did with the abortion law. Edited February 24, 2016 by TimG

[Smallc]

Actually after the now 4 month extension, if no new law is enacted, technically the old one would go back into force. However any attempt to charge under it would likely be thrown out due to the previous SCC finding on violation of sect.7 of the charter, and the restrictions of the previous finding would stand.

The old law is unconstitutional, and exists only for the 16 months that the court allowed. The Quebec law was allowed to exist at the same time, despite being in breach of the original law that is currently in force.

[On Guard for Thee]

The old law is unconstitutional, and exists only for the 16 months that the court allowed. The Quebec law was allowed to exist at the same time, despite being in breach of the original law that is currently in force.

So when you boil it all down, if no new laws are enacted you could seek PAD so long as the restrictions of the SCC are met.

[dre]

The court cannot create new laws. They can strike down laws or parts of laws. As of June 6th, unless a new law replaces the old one, there is no federal law.

Iv already explained why this is wrong and how the SCOC does a lot more than strike down laws. Whether the government writes a new statute or not this ruling will be adopted by the entire judicial system and the ruling does not just strike down the law it lays out the circumstances in which physician assisted suicide would be legal, and upholds Quebecs law even though it conflicts with the federal ban.

Edited February 24, 2016 by dre