Your Thoughts of the Supreme Court of Canada

[jacee]

That is BS you just made up. The point of passing new laws is because the *elected* officials believe that "following precedent" was not producing the results that the voters wanted. Therefore, precedent has absolutely no relevance in determining the constitutionality of laws. At the core this ruling is about the personal ideology of the judges and they have no business imposing their personal ideology on the country.

Nor have you.

The guy sold a bit of drugs, and for that he gets free housing and food for a year?

I can see the judge's point. ?

.

[square]

Their reasons were "because we say so". Or words to that effect.

It revolves around how 'cruel and unusual punishment' is defined. And they can to define it any way they damned well want to.

Brilliant.

Do you have anymore empty rhetoric?

[TimG]

Ive got a novel idea. Read the fucking decision.

From the decision:

With respect, I disagree. Parliament has crafted s. 95 as a hybrid offence. As such, it provides for mandatory minimum sentences when the Crown proceeds by way of indictment, but no mandatory minimum when the Crown proceeds summarily. In my view, this demonstrates Parliaments recognition that s. 95 captures a wide array of conduct, ranging from the true crime end of the spectrum to conduct that resembles a licensing infraction.

IOW, this was a judgement that does not have unchallengable basis in law or precedent. It is just a judgment that reflects the ideology of the majority of justices. Nothing more. Nothing less.

In your desperation to argue that this judgment represents some absolute truth in law you forgot that the ruling was only 6-3 which means there are logically consistent arguments for both sides, and, more importantly, both legal opinions were included in the decision.

Edited April 20, 2016 by TimG

[Peter F]

the ruling was only 6-3 which means there are logically consistent arguments for both sides,

Excellent. So it wasn't decided on whims and some wierd liberal need to ignore legislation.

[cybercoma]

Excellent. So it wasn't decided on whims and some wierd liberal need to ignore legislation.

Exactly! 6 judges reaches the conclusion. How many more does he want? 338? What does he think a Liberal Majority Parliament would vote?

[TimG]

Exactly! 6 judges reaches the conclusion. How many more does he want? 338? What does he think a Liberal Majority Parliament would vote?

A law passed by the Liberal majority can be replaced by a different law by the next government. When 6 justices impose their ideology on the country it is effectively set in stone because it is next to impossible to reverse by future governments. That makes ideologically biased SCC decisions a much bigger concern than democratically elected governments.

That said, the reason why it is so difficult to reverse SCC decisions is because of the false narrative spread by people like you who treat every court decision as the word of god. They aren't. They are simply a reflection of the ideological biases of the sitting judges that happen to share an ideology with a subset of the Canadian population. Their ideology is not superior to ideologies held by other groups of Canadians simply because they happen to be sitting on a court. If a future government wishes to reflect the wishes of the a Canadian people who are not represented by the subset of the population that choose to be judges then it should use the notwithstanding clause as often as necessary.

Personally, I would prefer the court show much more deference to the elected parliament so when it rules against the government its decisions could be taken more seriously. Unfortunately, the power corrupts and the current justices are drunk on it. This has undermined the credibility of the court.

Edited April 20, 2016 by TimG

[?Impact]

They are simply a reflection of the ideological biases of the sitting judges

You really don't have a clue about the difference between the judicial system and the legislative system. one makes decisions based on a hierarchy of laws and other case law, and the other is influenced by emotions and votes.

[jacee]

You really don't have a clue about the difference between the judicial system and the legislative system. one makes decisions based on a hierarchy of laws and other case law, and the other is influenced by emotions and votes.

Agreed.

The courts protect us from swings in political ideology.

Some people would like the courts to only reflect their own political ideology.

However, the Judicial Branch of government must be independent of politics:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/stephen-harpers-courts-how-the-judiciary-has-been-remade/article25661306/?service=mobile

For nearly 10 years, the Conservative government has been dripping blue ink into a red pot attempting to expunge, bit by bit, the countrys 30-year romance with the Charter, and with judges who go out of their way to be the guarantor of rights.

The moves have produced mixed results. The government is up against a culture of unanimity; when Liberal and Conservative appointees sit down together, they tend to find common ground. It also faces a tradition of judicial independence, ...

This, irrespective of who appointed you, is always the dominant culture, one appeal court judge said.

I have no real problem with Harper appointing judges he thought were more amenable to his ideology. Once appointed, they can't be removed except for egregious behaviour. And they know that political winds change, so their allegiance isn't to politics but to the bench itself: Judicial independence.

And that's as it should be.

.

Edited April 20, 2016 by jacee

[Argus]

Brilliant.

Do you have anymore empty rhetoric?

Do statements of truth hurt your brain?

[Argus]

You really don't have a clue about the difference between the judicial system and the legislative system. one makes decisions based on a hierarchy of laws and other case law, and the other is influenced by emotions and votes.

Your suggestion that the judges are free of bias is rather silly. All people are biased, most obviously in terms of the culture in which they were raised and in which they live. These people have spent the much of their lives immersed in a fairly inbred world of ivory tower academics, and that culture is quite different from that of Canada as a whole.

You can't, unless you're a lawyer, argue with their interpretation of law. But if you speak English you can certainly realize their interpretation of a word or a common turn of phrase is different from that of the majority. Using 'cruel and unusual punishment' to describe a year in jail is patently silly.

[Argus]

Agreed.

The courts protect us from swings in political ideology.

Some people would like the courts to only reflect their own political ideology.

Certainly the previous Liberal government felt that way, appointing an awful lot of left wingers to the bench. The government before them, a Quebec oriented Progressive Conservative one, did largely the same, as did the Trudeau government before them. This only became an 'issue' to you folks when a somewhat conservative government came to power and started doing the same thing.

[jacee]

Personally, I would prefer the court show much more deference to the elected parliament

torontosun.com: judges-not-parliamentarians-should-decide-fates

Do you believe Const. James Forcillo should likewise be subjected to the 5 year mandatory minimum penalty he currently faces?

If not, then you are in favour of judicial independence on a case-by-case basis, and not one-size-fits-all legislation.

Sure, a year in jail seems very reasonable for the cold and calculated evil of a professional drug dealer moving large quantities of narcotics for incredible profit. But the same Criminal Code provision slaps an identical minimum penalty on the drug addict with the misfortune of being caught twice sharing a small quantity of narcotics with a similarly drug-addled friend.

...

Few would argue against a long stint in the penitentiary for someone who tries to snuff out a life with the blaze of a handgun. But could anyone involved in drafting that particular mandatary minimum have foreseen its use against a police officer deploying his police-issued sidearm in the course of an arrest of a mentally unstable young man brandishing a knife?

Legislators simply cannot predict all of the circumstances of crimes. There must be ongoing intelligent thought applied. That's what we pay judges for.

In both of these cases, the problem is not that these men are 'criminals'. The problem is that both of them need help: one is a drug addict who needs help, and one is a hyperreactive cop who should never be one, never have a gun ... and he needs help too.

.

Edited April 20, 2016 by jacee

[jacee]

Dp

Edited April 20, 2016 by jacee

[jacee]

Certainly the previous Liberal government felt that way, appointing an awful lot of left wingers to the bench. The government before them, a Quebec oriented Progressive Conservative one, did largely the same, as did the Trudeau government before them. This only became an 'issue' to you folks when a somewhat conservative government came to power and started doing the same thing.

That's just reality. I don't have an issue with it.

That's why we have judicial independence.

That's why trying to legislate away judges' discretion is a very bad idea.

That's why Harper's mandatory minimums are being shot down.

See my previous posts

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25693-your-thoughts-of-the-supreme-court-of-canada/?p=1154631

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25693-your-thoughts-of-the-supreme-court-of-canada/?p=1154619

The universe is unfolding as it should. ?

.

Edited April 20, 2016 by jacee

[cybercoma]

You really don't have a clue about the difference between the judicial system and the legislative system. one makes decisions based on a hierarchy of laws and other case law, and the other is influenced by emotions and votes.

....and money, populism, and partisan rhetoric, Edited April 20, 2016 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

A law passed by the Liberal majority can be replaced by a different law by the next government.

If having a legal system where the laws are completely revamped every 5 years doesn't sound painfully stupid to you, then I don't know what to tell you. The discussion is moot when you don't even understand the basic functions of the branches of government anyway.

[dre]

Certainly the previous Liberal government felt that way, appointing an awful lot of left wingers to the bench. The government before them, a Quebec oriented Progressive Conservative one, did largely the same, as did the Trudeau government before them. This only became an 'issue' to you folks when a somewhat conservative government came to power and started doing the same thing.

No... I never had a problem with the Conservatives appointing justices. Its part of their job. The problem came when people were outraged that even Harper's appointees were not willing to ignore the law and give him the rulings he wanted.

[cybercoma]

I would prefer the court show much more deference to the elected parliament

Oh and this is a ridiculous thing for a conservative, let alone a libertarian, to say when ideologically you ought to be worried about government having too much power. That's why we have a charter of rights that acts as a check and a balance. But, hey...maybe you're authoritarian now and not actually libertarian as you once claimed.

[cybercoma]

Your suggestion that the judges are free of bias is rather silly.

Considering a case that goes before the Supreme Court is heard by up to 15 justices.....(1 at initial trial, 3-5 on appeal, and up to 9 at the SCC)...please, tell us more about these biases.

[cybercoma]

Also the process of appointing justices is democratic. They're picked by democratically elected governments. The only way they could be more democratic is if they were elected directly, which is a s*** show in countries where that happens. They're nothing more than glorified politicians then.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Please name the 'crooks' around Harper. Please state how he undermined the Charter, with examples. Note, passing laws you don't like does not constitute 'undermining' the charter.

You want to know those crooks and charlatans around Harper then listen to today's news on Mike Duffy trial and his acquittal as how the corrupt Harper and his PMO in a monstrous conspiracy used him like playing a game of chess and manipulated the situation to hide the facts.

Edited April 21, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

[Argus]

You want to know those crooks and charlatans around Harper then listen to today's news on Mike Duffy trial and his acquittal as how the corrupt Harper and his PMO in a monstrous conspiracy used him like playing a game of chess and manipulated the situation to hide the facts.

A 'monstrous conspiracy'? LOL. It's funny how the far left gets frantic over piddling little things, but doesn't have any issue with the crooked behaviour of their own leaders.

[CITIZEN_2015]

A 'monstrous conspiracy'? LOL. It's funny how the far left gets frantic over piddling little things, but doesn't have any issue with the crooked behaviour of their own leaders.

What is funny is to the extend you go to distort the facts to your advantage n such a deceptive manner. No wonder you are a strong supporter of Harper and his deposed regime.

First off I am not far left in fact my political views on immigration and capital punishment, crime and punishment and finances is closer to far right than left. Second my leader was elected by the nation given a big majority in a free and democratic election and your favorite was deposed in the same election because of the deceptive manipulative corrupt government he provided.

Edited April 21, 2016 by CITIZEN_2015

[Argus]

What is funny is to the extend you go to distort the facts to your advantage n such a deceptive manner.

By mocking your insane partisanship?

No wonder you are a strong supporter of Harper and his deposed regime.

I was never a strong supporter of Harper. I was simply a strong opponent of dumb people.

[jacee]

Personally, I would prefer the court show much more deference to the elected parliament

Do you mean courts should defer to Trudeau's parliament?

Do you see the fault in your logic yet?

.

Edited April 22, 2016 by jacee