Liberals Finally Appoint New Judges

[Guest]

So who argued against that? Where did cybercoma say otherwise?

You're debating against ghosts.

This was my first post. As long as that's okay that's fine.

I think what he's saying is that competence wasn't the main criteria. It doesn't matter. It never is.

[The_Squid]

This was my first post. As long as that's okay that's fine.

"main criteria"... let's get rid of your straw men and debate your actual point...

Please show evidence that it wasn't the main criteria.

[overthere]

Why do you keep asking such a silly question? Just answer the question asked back on page one. Demonstrate how they're not qualified. That's it. That's how you lay the claims of racism to rest. You actually show that these people are not qualified in some way.

The objection is that race, gender, sexual orientation are weighted in the selection for positions that should have as their prime and supreme criteria a profound competence at the law. Did that happen? Are they the very best jurists? The answer is no, because that was not the criteria used to select them.

[The_Squid]

The objection is that race, gender, sexual orientation are weighted in the selection for positions that should have as their prime and supreme criteria a profound competence at the law. Did that happen? Are they the very best jurists? The answer is no, because that was not the criteria used to select them.

Please provide some evidence that they are not as qualified as the other people who were up for the position....

[Bonam]

Common for bigots maybe.

Go on. Keep insulting everyone who disagrees with you. I'm sure that will convince them to see the light and see your position.

[The_Squid]

Go on. Keep insulting everyone who disagrees with you. I'm sure that will convince them to see the light and see your position.

Sometimes viewpoints like this need to be mocked and ridiculed because they are just that ridiculous. Trying to debate politely just gives legitimacy to a view like skin colour matters to how good a judge will be. Espeecially when the proponents of those viewpoints can't provide anything else to back up their claims.

[Guest]

"main criteria"... let's get rid of your straw men and debate your actual point...

Please show evidence that it wasn't the main criteria.

I said I think that was what he was saying. I still do. I also said it doesn't matter. It doesn't, to me, because every politician that ever lived(okay, maybe not Gandhi) would put people who support their agendas in places of power when they get the chance.

So, to reiterate, I don't think that JT's number one criteria in making these appointments was the legal skills of the appointees. I don't know that. I just don't think it was.

You, and others, think it was. I daresay you don't know it either. I don't care that you think that. You, and others, seem to care deeply that I don't.

Edited June 25, 2016 by bcsapper

[The_Squid]

I said I think that was what he was saying. I still do. I also said it doesn't matter. It doesn't, to me, because every politician that ever lived(okay, maybe not Gandhi) would put people who support their agendas in places of power when they get the chance.

So, to reiterate, I don't think that JT's number one criteria in making these appointments was the legal skills of the appointees. I don't know that. I just don't think it was.

You, and others, think it was. I daresay you don't know it either. I don't care that you think that. You, and others, seem to care deeply that I don't.

So opinion based upon absolutely no facts or evidence. Interesting way to form an opinion...

[Guest]

So opinion based upon absolutely no facts or evidence. Interesting way to form an opinion...

An opinion is usually based on experience not facts. If it was based on facts it would be fact. Not opinion.

On what do you base your opinion of their credentials, compared to all those who didn't get the jobs? Is it your personal experience of unbiased politicians who never make self serving decisions, or do you have facts?

If you have facts, let's have them and I'll concede the point. It's not something I expected to go on this long, to be honest.

[Bonam]

Sometimes viewpoints like this need to be mocked and ridiculed because they are just that ridiculous.

Yep. That worked out great for the Remain campaign!

[The_Squid]

An opinion is usually based on experience not facts. If it was based on facts it would be fact. Not opinion.

ummm... no. Opinions are not the same as facts.

On what do you base your opinion of their credentials, compared to all those who didn't get the jobs? Is it your personal experience of unbiased politicians who never make self serving decisions, or do you have facts?

I never made any claims. Asking for evidence when someone makes a claim doesn't mean that I support the opposite.

If you have facts, let's have them and I'll concede the point. It's not something I expected to go on this long, to be honest.

So I am supposed to show evidence of the opposite when you make a claim? Sorry.... that's not the way it works. You have made a claim... you show the evidence.

[The_Squid]

Yep. That worked out great for the Remain campaign!

Cybercoma was part of the "remain" campaign? You're comparing apples to pineapples!!

[Bonam]

Cybercoma was part of the "remain" campaign? You're comparing apples to pineapples!!

They're both fruits.

[The_Squid]

They're both fruits.

Yet they're still not the same thing...

a post on a forum, versus a referendum in Britain... maybe it's more like comparing apples to elephants!

[Guest]

ummm... no. Opinions are not the same as facts.

That seems to be exactly what I said?

I never made any claims. Asking for evidence when someone makes a claim doesn't mean that I support the opposite.

So you don't? You think my opinion, based solely on past experience of the behaviour of politicians and the obvious (in my opinion only, of course, I haven't interviewed them) political leanings of the appointees mentioned in the OP is not completely out to lunch? I just don't have facts to back it up. That's the problem?

So I am supposed to show evidence of the opposite when you make a claim? Sorry.... that's not the way it works. You have made a claim... you show the evidence.

You're not supposed to show evidence of anything. I was wondering what information or experience you had that might change my opinion. If none, then it's still my opinion.

Edited June 25, 2016 by bcsapper

[Guest]

Cybercoma was part of the "remain" campaign? You're comparing apples to pineapples!!

So was I. And we're aguing the toss.

[The_Squid]

You're not supposed to show evidence of anything. I was wondering what information or experience you had that might change my opinion. If none, then it's still my opinion.

Sorry... reversing the burden of proof (prove that it isn't the way I say it is) doesn't work on me. You admit you have no evidence of your claim... and now you think I should provide proof to change your mind.

Nope... let's just leave it right there....

[Guest]

Sorry... reversing the burden of proof (prove that it isn't the way I say it is) doesn't work on me. You admit you have no evidence of your claim... and now you think I should provide proof to change your mind.

Nope... let's just leave it right there....

There is no proof. If I could prove my opinion it would be a fact. What did we just agree about opinions? They aren't facts.

Sure, let's leave it.

[Smallc]

Name one poster that hasn't already been banned who would put that up as their argument.

Anyway, the whole point of debate is debate. Look at the judges thread. Accusations of racism seem to be the only argument against the proposition the the PM would appoint judges based on anything but their legal credentials. And that seems to be as far as it goes.

It would be nice if someone actually pointed out how noticing partisan political appointees is racist.

The argument is that they can be both eminently qualified and diverse. I believe that legal knowledge was criterion number one. I believe that because the history of appointments in Canada really does aim that way, no matter the party in charge. I don't accept that it was hard for the Liberals to find 12 diverse people (cot counting the 3 white males) who were first able to be good jurists. If you believe otherwise, prove it.

[Archduke al-Qaddafi]

The judiciary gets the bottom of the barrel anyway. Any lawyer worth his salt can make much more money in the private sector.

[Guest]

The argument is that they can be both eminently qualified and diverse. I believe that legal knowledge was criterion number one. I believe that because the history of appointments in Canada really does aim that way, no matter the party in charge. I don't accept that it was hard for the Liberals to find 12 diverse people (cot counting the 3 white males) who were first able to be good jurists. If you believe otherwise, prove it.

Why? I'm perfectly happy to believe you believe that. When did I ever say they weren't qualified? I'm probably on record here as stating I believe they are qualified. Somewhere in this thread.

I differ from you in my opinion of the ranking of the criteria used, is all. I think JT cares most about their potential for agreeing with his policies down the road.

[Bonam]

I don't accept that it was hard for the Liberals to find 12 diverse people (cot counting the 3 white males) who were first able to be good jurists. If you believe otherwise, prove it.

How are white males not "diverse"? They make up only about 7% of the world's population.

[Smallc]

How are white males not "diverse"? They make up only about 7% of the world's population.

I don't think that was the pool Trudeau was drawing from.

[Bonam]

I don't think that was the pool Trudeau was drawing from.

Canada draws its population from all over the world. White males are a small minority, much discriminated against by institutionalized hiring practices in Western countries. It should be obvious given that out of a pool of candidates comprised mostly of white males, only 3 of 15 white males being selected, that discrimination is afoot.

[Smallc]

Canada draws its population from all over the world. White males are a small minority, much discriminated against by institutionalized hiring practices in Western countries

And yet they make up the majority of the bench, whilst making up a smaller majority (or at least a large plurality) of the Canadian population as a whole.

It should be obvious given that out of a pool of candidates comprised mostly of white males, only 3 of 15 white males being selected, that discrimination is afoot.

It should be obvious that when white males make up a substantially larger percentage of the bar and judiciary than of the population, discrimination is afoot.