Your Thoughts of the Supreme Court of Canada

[Tweedledum]

That's basically a sentencing guideline. It makes good sense but it wouldn't be enough to placate all the folks that think the courts are part of an evil liberal conspiracy.

Perhaps - but you can't please all of the people all of the time - and it would seem that it would resonate well with the vast majority of Canadians......

[Peter F]

If you read the dissenting judgement you will see that this statement is false since Crown prosecutors have the option of charging people who are accidentally in violation of the law with a similar offence that does not carry the minimum. Furthermore, the judge could decide to find someone not guilty if the Crown prosecutors laid charges that were inappropriate given the nature of the offense.

This is new! Now you are paying attention to a judges reasons instead of passing the reasoning off as specious. Do the reasons matter when it is the judges ideology that is the determing factor?

Edited April 26, 2016 by Peter F

[TimG]

Do the reasons matter when it is the judges ideology that is the determining factor?

Spurious arguments are often superficially rational because they ignore facts that undermine the argument. They will often include facts that do support the argument and those facts can be relevant on their own. All I was doing is pointing out facts that contracted a claim made by another poster. The fact that the SCC majority appeared to ignore such obvious facts supports my argument that their decision was based on their ideology and they constructed a legal argument to rationalize their ideologically driven choice. Edited April 26, 2016 by TimG

[dre]

The fact that the SCC majority appeared to ignore such obvious facts supports my argument that their decision was based on their ideology and they constructed a legal argument to rationalize their ideologically driven choice.

Yawn... Mindless nonsense. You have no idea what consideration was given to the minority opinion. This is just more of the nut-jobbery and conspiracy that results from your long running persecution complex.

Just be honest! You dont like some of the rulings!

[TimG]

Just be honest! You don't like some of the rulings!

Be honest you like some of the rulings. Spare me the pretentious hypocrisy. Few people mindlessly accept authority today. If an authority says something you like you will praise that authority's wisdom. If an authority says something you don't like you will tear down the authority. But when you tear down an authority I bet you don't accuse yourself of peddling conspiracy theories - you will just insist you are speaking the truth and that the authority is biased. People in glass houses should not throw stones. Edited April 27, 2016 by TimG

[Big Guy]

Personally, I see the Supreme Court as the "Umpire" whose job is to be the final judge on an issue. Very few issues that reach the Supreme Court are one sided. The mere fact that it rises to the SCC indicates as that there are conflicting and serious differences of opinion in the judgment of who is more or most correct in the interpretation of our constitution regarding that issue. Every democracy has some body which is given the power to have "the final say" on a judgment.

I believe that the system works on the principle that there is only one thing worse than a bad solution and that is no solution. You cannot move forward if you have not settled an issue.

As to the legitimacy of the judgment, I use the analogy of the umpire calling strikes and balls in a baseball game. The umpire has an agreed to strike zone which designates the vulnerable area of each batter according to his/her height. It has been agreed to by all players that the umpire will decide if a pitch falls within that zone. There is no appeal process. The definition of a "strike" then is anything that the umpire calls a strike. The game could not continue if the umpire was not given that power of absolute judgment.

In Canadian law, the members of the SCC are given their strike zone - our constitution. They are asked to interpret its application in those individual issues that end up in their power to judge. They hear the cases and rule on which argument is the best interpretation of the constitution - by a majority of the judges. That sets a case precedent to be used for other problematic and controversial issues. There is no appeal process and the system moves on. We could not move on without the SCC given that power of absolute judgement.

I may not agree that a particular pitch is a strike while watching a baseball game but I understand why the umpire is given that absolute power to judge that pitch - that is the only way in which the game could be played.

I may not agree that a particular issue has been adjudicated to my personal wishes or interpretation (especially in split decision) but understand why the SCC is given the absolute power to judge the merits of an issue - that is the only way we can proceed in our society.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Big Guy

[TimG]

Personally, I see the Supreme Court as the "Umpire" whose job is to be the final judge on an issue.

Your analogy misses a few key points:

1) The strike zone is well defined and cameras can be used to determine if an umpire is complying with the rules; The SCC not only calls strikes and fouls it also decides where the strike zone is;

2) The Notwithstanding Clause allows politicians to overrule the SCC which means that politicians - not the courts have the final say; The SCC only has the power it does have because politicians are scared to use the Notwithstanding Clause;

[Argus]

The idea of mandatory minimum sentencing is not new. It has been attempted and rejected by all democracies.

No, it hasn't been. You continue your habit of presuming your beliefs are universal and that whatever you believe must be fact.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

Just be honest! You dont like some of the rulings!

No one with a fundamental sense of justice and belief in democracy would agree with all rulings.

[Big Guy]

Your analogy misses a few key points:

1) The strike zone is well defined and cameras can be used to determine if an umpire is complying with the rules; The SCC not only calls strikes and fouls it also decides where the strike zone is;

2) The Notwithstanding Clause allows politicians to overrule the SCC which means that politicians - not the courts have the final say; The SCC only has the power it does have because politicians are scared to use the Notwithstanding Clause;

I read our constitution differently: Using the same analogy in 1) , The equivalent of the strike zone definition is our constitution. Only parliament can change it - the SCC interprets it according to the wording of the defined parameters.

The politicians and legislature are the equivalent of league owners who can change the rules at ant time - the umpires can only in interpret the new rules.

I believe that every democracy has to have a body which has the final say on the interpretation of rules that govern our society. A SCC provides that function and I believe it does it well in the way it is staffed, updated and in its decisions.

[TimG]

I read our constitution differently: Using the same analogy in 1) , The equivalent of the strike zone definition is our constitution.

The strike zone is well defined in baseball rules and there is no debate about where it is. If there is a disputed call cameras can be used to definitively determine whether the umpire made a good call or not. No such clarity exists with the constitution where the SCC routinely rewrites rules in ways that would have been completely unacceptable to the people who originally wrote the constitution.

That said, The Notwithstanding Clause is the appeal mechanism - if it was actually used.

[Big Guy]

The strike zone is well defined in baseball rules and there is no debate about where it is. If there is a disputed call cameras can be used to definitively determine whether the umpire made a good call or not. No such clarity exists with the constitution where the SCC routinely rewrites rules in ways that would have been completely unacceptable to the people who originally wrote the constitution.

That said, The Notwithstanding Clause is the appeal mechanism - if it was actually used.

Thank you for a civil sharing of views.

[The_Squid]

The strike zone is well defined in baseball rules and there is no debate about where it is.

Very bad analogy as there is all sorts of debate about the strikezone in baseball and how it varies from ump to ump.

[Big Guy]

Very bad analogy as there is all sorts of debate about the strikezone in baseball and how it varies from ump to ump.

My point is that what the designated judge, the umpire, calls a strike - is a strike. It could bounce off the ground, it could be four feet outside the strike zone. It is the strike because the umpire has been given that responsibility and power to make that decision. The league has decided that to be the best way for the league to survive.

We have an "umpire" (the SCC) and what they say is the precedent for future deliberations.

[TimG]

It could bounce off the ground, it could be four feet outside the strike zone. It is the strike because the umpire has been given that responsibility and power to make that decision.

Except that is not true. If the umpire obviously made an error there is an appeal process that could over turn the umpire's ruling. The benefit of the doubt only applies when it is not an obvious error. Edited April 27, 2016 by TimG

[Peter F]

Except that is not true. If the umpire obviously made an error there is an appeal process that could over turn the umpire's ruling. The benefit of the doubt only applies when it is not an obvious error.

But is there an appeal process to appeal the decision to overturn the umpires ruling? At some point, the buck stops.

[Big Guy]

Except that is not true. If the umpire obviously made an error there is an appeal process that could over turn the umpire's ruling. The benefit of the doubt only applies when it is not an obvious error.

I have been watching baseball for a long time. Could you please give me one example of an umpire changing a "ball" to a "strike" , or vice versa, after an appeal? If I am mistaken then I apologize.

I do know that if a batter argues a strike or a ball call by the umpire then they are thrown out of the game. That is not allowed by the rules of the game.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Big Guy

[square]

Comparing the SCC to an ump is a bad example. First of all the ump is just that that an ump. The SCC has a composition of 9 Justices. The SCC makes a "call" depending on what the majority of the Judge "call". If one Judge makes the wrong "call" there are still 8 other Judges and the SCC makes a "call" base on the majority of the Judges.

In baseball their is 1 ump who calls balls and strikes. There are no reviews.

[square]

Comparing the SCC to an ump is a bad example. First of all the ump is just that that an ump. The SCC has a composition of 9 Justices. The SCC makes a "call" depending on what the majority of the Judge "call". If one Judge makes the wrong "call" there are still 8 other Judges and the SCC makes a "call" base on the majority of the Judges.

In baseball their is 1 ump who calls balls and strikes. There are no reviews. Think about a baseball game having 9 home plate umpires.

[eyeball]

In baseball their is 1 ump who calls balls and strikes. There are no reviews.

Which is a lot closer to what right-wingers actually want their vengeance system to resemble.

[blueblood]

But is there an appeal process to appeal the decision to overturn the umpires ruling? At some point, the buck stops.

It has to stop with parliament. Having a cabal decide things based on their beliefs and not having to be held accountable isnt a good place for the buck to stop.

[cybercoma]

Comparing the SCC to an ump is a bad example. First of all the ump is just that that an ump. The SCC has a composition of 9 Justices. The SCC makes a "call" depending on what the majority of the Judge "call". If one Judge makes the wrong "call" there are still 8 other Judges and the SCC makes a "call" base on the majority of the Judges.

In baseball their is 1 ump who calls balls and strikes. There are no reviews.

The SCC is also the end of a lengthy appeals process.

[cybercoma]

It has to stop with parliament. Having a cabal decide things based on their beliefs and not having to be held accountable isnt a good place for the buck to stop.

Do you even understand the reason for the Constitution and Charter of Rights?

[ColdComfort]

Do you even understand the reason for the Constitution and Charter of Rights?

To rid ourselves of our own constitutional traditions and adopt US ones? I think originally people actually did think it was about human rights and the fear that a majority in Parliament or a legislature could disregard minorities. I don't think many actually believe that anymore. It's about power. Who gets to decide policy decisions. Our new Family Compact of lawyers think they know what's best for Canada and democracy can't be trusted. Yep. Political power that's what the CoR is about.

[eyeball]

Yep. Political power that's what the CoR is about.

It's about limiting the government's power when it steps beyond it's bounds.