Your Thoughts of the Supreme Court of Canada

[?Impact]

The Conservatives were last elected with 39.62% of the vote. Trudeau was just elected with 39.5%. Therefore, Trudeau is a dictator?

RETRACTED

It would help if you used real numbers:

2011: Conservatives: 5,832,401 - 37.62%

2015: Liberals: 6,943,276 - 39.47%

I won't however resort to any 'dictator' or other labels.

Edited April 19, 2016 by ?Impact

[dre]

The problem here is an ideologically driven court that has decided it is the only body in the country entitled to write laws.

No most of these problems were totally avoidable if the authors of the legislation just thought things through and got some legal advice.

[TimG]

No most of these problems were totally avoidable if the authors of the legislation just thought things through and got some legal advice.

A talking point that partisans spew to rationalize the SCC's authoritarianism.

If your talking point had any merit the SCC would have provided instructions for fixing the legislation and suspended it until it is fixed. But they didn't because the real issue is a power mad SCC full of ideologues.

Edited April 18, 2016 by TimG

[dre]

A talking point that partisans spew to rationalize the SCC's authoritarianism.

If your talking point had any merit the SCC would have provided instructions for fixing the legislation and suspended it until it is fixed.

That's usually what the SCC does (assisted suicide for example). And you're the one posting partisan talking points, not me.

I'm not a much of a partisan at all, unlike you. In the last four elections Iv voted Conservative once, Liberal once, and abstained from twice. There's no way I would ever be a member of any of them.

Your opinion of the court is really just an extension of your usual shtick. Any group that doesn't tell you what you want to hear is part of some grand conspiracy. Judges, Lawyers, Scientists, Teachers, the Media, Universities, Governments, International bodies. Your persecution complex runs so deep that it could be tapped to provide geo-thermal energy.

Edited April 18, 2016 by dre

[TimG]

That's usually what the SCC does (assisted suicide for example).

Yet it did not in this case and you want to argue that the issue was only 'poorly drafted legislation'. Seems like the facts do not support your rhetoric.

I'm not a much of a partisan at all

Partisan does not have to mean support for a single party. Partisan can means a myopic view that is blind to other POVs. If you were really not a partisan you would acknowledge that you have no issue with the SCC because you happen to agree with their rulings but if the the SCC started consistently ruling in ways you did not like you would likely question their impartiality too.

Any group that doesn't tell you what you want to hear is part of some grand conspiracy.

And this is part of your partisan shtick: accuse anyone who disagrees with you of spreading conspiracy theories so you can protect your partisan bubble from contrary information.

In this case I offered the observation that the court oftered no suggestions on how to fix the legislation which contradicts your claim that it was simply sloppy legislation. Care to address that point?

Edited April 18, 2016 by TimG

[Argus]

No, Carson's not a crook at all...

No, he's not. He was acquitted because the judge decided what he was doing was not illegal.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bruce-carson-not-guilty-influence-peddling-1.3322811

Edited April 19, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

It would help if you used real numbers:

2011: Conservatives: 5,832,401 - 37.62%

2015: Liberals: 6,943,276 - 39.47%

I won't however resort to any 'dictator' or other labels.

The numbers I used came from wiki for the 2011 election.

39.62% 30.63% 18.91%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2011

[The_Squid]

No, he's not. He was acquitted because the judge decided what he was doing was not illegal.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bruce-carson-not-guilty-influence-peddling-1.3322811

So lobbying his friends in gov't to get funding and contracts then funnelling money through his hooker girlfriend might be legal in a Harper government, but it certainly wasn't ethical. Edited April 19, 2016 by The_Squid

[cybercoma]

This from the person that always dismisses anyone that presents a hypothetical scenario or an analogy? Nice.

But no, the judges can simply rule that the person in your made up scenario is not guilty, since there is no criminal intent. Next try?

That is incorrect. People can commit crimes without intent. See the difference between homicide and manslaughter.

[cybercoma]

The problem here is an ideologically driven court that has decided it is the only body in the country entitled to write laws.

Name one law the Supreme Court has written. Better yet, open an elementary civics book and learn how our institutions work. Edited April 19, 2016 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

A talking point that partisans spew to rationalize the SCC's authoritarianism.If your talking point had any merit the SCC would have provided instructions for fixing the legislation and suspended it until it is fixed. But they didn't because the real issue is a power mad SCC full of ideologues.

Riiight. And the completely wrong statement that the SCC writes laws....what merit is there to that talking point?

[TimG]

Name one law the Supreme Court has written.

The SCC just rewrote the laws on sentencing. Because of the SCC, Parliament now no longer has any control over sentences for crimes. Sure the Parliament could increase the maximums on paper but judges are under no obligation to bother with them. If you disagree then please explain how parliament could choose to make the sentences for child pornography more severe without minimum sentences?

[?Impact]

The numbers I used came from wiki for the 2011 election.

I apologize, my statement was in error and I have retracted it (left in place for historical purposes, but crossed out above).

One interesting note, I see that there is a discrepancy in the number of valid votes recorded on the wiki site you refer to and the parl.gc.ca site (a few thousand one way or the other depending on the party). The percentage of popular vote however is within 0.02%.

ref: http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/compilations/electionsandridings/ResultsParty.aspx?Season=0&Parliament=1924d334-6bd0-4cb3-8793-cee640025ff6

[cybercoma]

The SCC just rewrote the laws on sentencing. Because of the SCC, Parliament now no longer has any control over sentences for crimes.

This is completely incorrect. They determined a section of particular legislation to be invalid. The legislation still has sentencing guidelines that were determined by the government when that part of the Criminal Code was written. No offence but you're clearly ignorant about the roles of the various branches of government. You should seriously go read up on them, instead of saying such ridiculous things in public. The courts do not write legislation, particularly the Supreme Court. They didn't even write the Constitution and Charter that they use as their guidelines for decisions. In no way whatsoever do they create laws.

[Peter F]

If your talking point had any merit the SCC would have provided instructions for fixing the legislation and suspended it until it is fixed. But they didn't because the real issue is a power mad SCC full of ideologues.

So you want the SCC to instruct the Legislative folks in how to make legislation ?

[TimG]

The legislation still has sentencing guidelines that were determined by the government when that part of the Criminal Code was written.

Sentencing guidelines which the courts are under no obligation to observe. You seen to completely miss the point: how can Parliament increase punishments for crimes and ensure the judiciary does not simply ignore the changes? What process is there for accountability that checks that judges actually follow the new guidelines? The short answer is there is none and there can be none according to the SCC. So your condescending lectures about 'how the system is supposed to work' are quite irrelevant. My point is that IN THE REAL WORLD parliament no longer has any control over punishments for crimes.

Instead of using irrelevant lectures to avoid my point why do you try to address it: please explain how Parliament could increase the sentences for a crime like aggravated sexual assault and be certain that the judges will actually follow the new guidelines in 99% of the cases which do not have the hypothetical concerns raised in the judgment?

Edited April 19, 2016 by TimG

[?Impact]

Sentencing guidelines which the courts are under no obligation to observe. You seen to completely miss the point: how can Parliament increase punishments for crimes and ensure the judiciary does not simply ignore the changes?

You are making an assumption that the judiciary will not take any new guidelines into account, do you have any basis for that assumption?

What is the reason for increasing punishments? Does it deter crime, or is it simply a vote getting ploy? Is there any evidence to support your desire to increase punishment? Do you want to abandon a correctional system, and put in place a punishment system?

[TimG]

You are making an assumption that the judiciary will not take any new guidelines into account, do you have any basis for that assumption?

Do you have any evidence that they do? What information is gathered to determine how much each judge conforms to the guidelines? What are the consequences for judges that fail to follow the guidelines in >90% of their cases? I believe the answer is that judges are not held accountable for their decisions and now, thanks to the SCC, the government has no power to hold them accountable.

What is the reason for increasing punishments?

To be effective the public must believe justice is done. Light sentences lead to a situation where the public holds the justice system in contempt. The goal of reforming offenders is only ONE of the goals of the criminal justice system. Edited April 19, 2016 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Sentencing guidelines which the courts are under no obligation to observe. You seen to completely miss the point: how can Parliament increase punishments for crimes and ensure the judiciary does not simply ignore the changes?

Easy. Don't make laws that violate people's charter rights. The court was very clear that the problem wasn't MMS itself, but the fact that the law required it to be applied way too broadly. If you read the decision before going on your uninformed rants, you would know that. The government doesn't get to make whatever laws it wants. It is bound by the constitution and reserve powers of the Crown. We're a constitutional monarchy and not a direct democracy, as much as populists want to think we are. Edited April 19, 2016 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

To be effective the public must believe justice is done.

Which is why the SCC overturned legislation that would require the same sentence for an accidental criminal as a career criminal. No reasonable person would call that justice.

[TimG]

The court was very clear that the problem wasn't MMS itself, but the fact that the law required it to be applied way too broadly.

If this argument had any merit the SCC would have suspended the law and gave the goverment time to fix it. It didn't - it simply struck down the legislation which, despite your protests, sends a message that mandatory minimums are not acceptable and that parliament has no right to restrict what judges do in terms of sentencing.

The government doesn't get to make whatever laws it wants. It is bound by the constitution

Except there is nothing in the constitution about mandatory minimums. This ruling is entirely based on the personal ideological preferences of the sitting judges. A different set of judges at a different time could have come up with different legal arguments that are just as valid as far as the constitution is concerned yet upheld the laws.

The latter point is the most critical: the constitution is not a clear rule book that is not subject to interpretation. And since interpretation is required the personal biases of the judges matter whether you want to admit it or not. And since these rulings are a refection of the personal biases of the judges they should never be considered the last word on the questions.

IOW: the conservatives did not violate the constitution. The simply disagreed with the ideology held by the current set of SCC judges.

Edited April 19, 2016 by TimG

[Argus]

So lobbying his friends in gov't to get funding and contracts then funnelling money through his hooker girlfriend might be legal in a Harper government, but it certainly wasn't ethical.

He wasn't with the government at the time.

[Argus]

The SCC just rewrote the laws on sentencing. Because of the SCC, Parliament now no longer has any control over sentences for crimes. Sure the Parliament could increase the maximums on paper but judges are under no obligation to bother with them. If you disagree then please explain how parliament could choose to make the sentences for child pornography more severe without minimum sentences?

When was the last time you ever heard a judge give the maximum? I can't recall seeing it EVER. They're much more likely to give the minimum. Unless, of course, there are no miniums, then they get to smile tolerantly as they slap criminals lightly on the wrist and send them out to do it again.

[Argus]

So you want the SCC to instruct the Legislative folks in how to make legislation ?

How is that different from simply rewriting the legislation after it's written?

[Argus]

You are making an assumption that the judiciary will not take any new guidelines into account, do you have any basis for that assumption?

What is the reason for increasing punishments? Does it deter crime, or is it simply a vote getting ploy? Is there any evidence to support your desire to increase punishment? Do you want to abandon a correctional system, and put in place a punishment system?

None of your questions matter. The only question which counts is who gets to decide on the appropriate range of punishments for a given crime, the representatives of the people, or the unelected, unaccountable judiciary? If the people feel that a crime needs to be more severely punished why should the judiciary get to shake its collective head and disagree? The reasoning that a lousy one year in prison is 'cruel and unusual punishment' for a repeat drug trafficker is ludicrous, and just shows that judges can decide ANYTHING is unconstitutional if they're of a mind to do so. They could equally decide one day in jail is cruel an unusual punishment for a multiple murderer. It is within their power to do so, and there is no appeal.