Argus Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 It's been seven months, but I guess it took that long to try to sift through the political backgrounds and races of all the lawyers in the country to find the most pleasing mix of left wing ethnics that would be pleasing to our amazingly superficial prime minister and his fundamentalist leftist party. All the judges appointed are overtly political on the far left, most of them activists, and virtually none white males, despite how they dominate the legal community. They can be counted on to ignore the law as it's written and rule according to their political and social beliefs, and always against the interests of the majority of the population. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/liberal-appointments-signal-intent-to-diversify-canadian-judiciary/article30532954/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 How dare someone appoint brown people to things. Those people can't be unbiased. Donald, is that you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 How dare someone appoint brown people to things. Those people can't be unbiased. Donald, is that you? Typical leftist response. It's just coincidence that only 3 of 15 appointees are white men! All the appointments are on merit! Of course, to the left 'merit' doesn't have anything to do with skills or abilities. It's about what ethnic, gender and social niche you belong to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 I'm sure the bench is still well represented by white men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 I'm sure the bench is still well represented by white men. I'm interested in the bench being represented by competence and an adherence to neutrality. These people were specifically appointed due to their activism with the expectation they would carry their prejudicial views into the courtroom. But all you lefties who screamed bloody murder when Harper appointed some mildly conservative judges will be pleased, I'm sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Mostly second tier jurists, but certainly not any kind of surprise from Trudeau. As always, he is playing to an audience that approves of the result and is willing to hold their noses on the process. I am delighted that medical licenses are not passed out on this kind of 'merit'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 I'm interested in the bench being represented by competence and an adherence to neutrality. These people were specifically appointed due to their activism with the expectation they would carry their prejudicial views into the courtroom. But all you lefties who screamed bloody murder when Harper appointed some mildly conservative judges will be pleased, I'm sure. Not only that, but Harper appointed Supreme Court jurists who shot him down on several occasions. Trudeau won't be taking that kind of risk, oh no he won't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 I'm interested in the bench being represented by competence and an adherence to neutrality. These people were specifically appointed due to their activism with the expectation they would carry their prejudicial views into the courtroom. But all you lefties who screamed bloody murder when Harper appointed some mildly conservative judges will be pleased, I'm sure. Find where I did that and I'll concede the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoke Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Find where I did that and I'll concede the point. Yeah Argus, he never said anything against Harper. Because he supported Harper then. Since the election Smallc is a Liberal. See a trend here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Other that skin colour, does anyone have a single issue why one of these judges is wrong and someone passed over is right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Other that skin colour, does anyone have a single issue why one of these judges is wrong and someone passed over is right? What more do you need/?? Sheesh!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 (edited) Yeah Argus, he never said anything against Harper. Because he supported Harper then. Since the election Smallc is a Liberal. See a trend here? I had complaints with some of what Harper did and I have complaints with some of what Trudeau is doing. No one is infallible. Edited June 21, 2016 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 (edited) Other that skin colour, does anyone have a single issue why one of these judges is wrong and someone passed over is right? They're raging leftists! Or so I've heard. Edited June 21, 2016 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 How dare someone appoint brown people to things. Those people can't be unbiased. Donald, is that you? Nor can they be competent apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoke Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Nice deflection....the color thing. Nobody on the left commenting on the comparison between Harper's/Trudeau's appointee's being partisan. Typical deflection. Harper Bad...Trudeau Good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Nice deflection....the color thing. Nobody on the left commenting on the comparison between Harper's/Trudeau's appointee's being partisan. Typical deflection. Harper Bad...Trudeau Good. Who on the left said that in this thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoke Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Who on the left said that in this thread? Really??? Only you, Squid and Peter F. smh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 (edited) Really??? Only you, Squid and Peter F. smh I never mentioned Harper... Do you even know the judges or their decisions? Of course not... all you know is that they were appointed by Trudeau and the colour of their skin. Edited June 21, 2016 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Of all the100's of judicial appointments made by Stephen Harper, the only ones I remember that the 'left' had problems with were Marc Nadon because he was unqualified for the position (confirmed by the Supreme Court judgement on the matter), and Vic Toews. Now suddenly we have a dozen of Trudeau appointments that the 'right' has problems with because they are not white enough. Again I ask, other than the colour of their skin list the problems with any one of these judges and who was overlooked because they were better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Of all the100's of judicial appointments made by Stephen Harper, the only ones I remember that the 'left' had problems with were Marc Nadon because he was unqualified for the position (confirmed by the Supreme Court judgement on the matter), and Vic Toews. Now suddenly we have a dozen of Trudeau appointments that the 'right' has problems with because they are not white enough. It was an ongoing theme among the Left that Harper was at war with the constitution and the judiciary and trying to stack the benches with every manner of heartless, evil, slavering fascist judge he could find. Again I ask, other than the colour of their skin list the problems with any one of these judges and who was overlooked because they were better. You mean aside from elementary logic? Why would you appoint activists as judges without the expectation the motivation which drove them to BE activists would carry through into their job? And how do you scan the entire mass of the best legal minds in the country, which are bound to be about 95% white, come up with mostly non-whites, and tell me these are the best available? In truth, these are the best minorities with left wing political beliefs available. And that was what was considered important. Same as entry into the Trudeau cabinet. If you've got ovaries, you're in. Competence not so much a factor. It's the same method he used to build his cabinet. Somehow, we're to believe, that he managed to put 30% of his female MPs into the cabinet (11% of male MPs are in cabinet) without passing over more qualified and competent men for jobs. No, this is the same sort of mentality as you can find in this column from the Globe and Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/white-male-lawyers-should-say-no-to-judicial-appointments/article23044838/ There are too many white male judges. The fact that up until relatively recently the vast majority of lawyers were white and male is considered irrelevant. Likewise, the fact that most of Canada's non-white community is made up of immigrants - which means they're extremely unlikely to have been educated in Canadian law prior to coming here, or are fairly young, which means that even if educated in law in Canada they are unlikely to have the decades of experience we'd like to see in judicial appointments is not considered relevant. The mentality is "find someone with darker skin, ANYONE with darker skin", without regard to who is most qualified. The most recent stats, admittedly five years old, I've seen, suggested lots of younger women have gone into law in recent years, and they made up the majority of lawyers under thirty. But I don't want a lawyer under thirty on the bench. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Our country is doomed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 White guilt is going to destroy this beautiful country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 I'm interested in the bench being represented by competence If they're not white men, then they can't be competent? Is that what you're suggesting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Nice deflection....the color thing. Nobody on the left commenting on the comparison between Harper's/Trudeau's appointee's being partisan. Typical deflection. Harper Bad...Trudeau Good. Political appointments are partisan!? Stop the f***ing presses! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 White guilt is going to destroy this beautiful country. So having judges who aren't white is going to destroy the country?Do you have any idea how stupidly racist your comment is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.