overthere Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Your childish insults are a testament to how empty your arguments are here. You've not once shown any example of how these judges lack the requisite qualifications for the job. What merits are they lacking? You've got absolutely nothing, so you just insult posters instead. Which is god damned hilarious considering you're the biggest complainer about people insulting you. The requisite qualifications for senior judicial appointments should be : first, you are the best and most competent jurist( defined as an " expert in law") as compared to others with that as their most important attribute . Perhaps we need another word or perhaps another language to describe somebody who is competent in law but also possesses non white skin, a vagina, a limp, sexual orientation or other factors that supersede being "an expert in law". Discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 So prove that these people aren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Pure coincidence that a profession utterly dominated by white men only managed how many appointments? 3 out of 15? Majick. I did not state that the appointees were not competent at their jobs, but are they the best jurists? When you invent and then apply the metric of 'diversity' as being a qualification anything is possible innit? Slow clap for the New Order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Pure coincidence that a profession utterly dominated by white men only managed how many appointments? 3 out of 15? Majick. There are no competent non whites in the profession? Not even 12? I did not state that the appointees were not competent at their jobs, but are they the best jurists? When you invent and then apply the metric of 'diversity' as being a qualification anything is possible innit? Slow clap for the New Order. This position doesn't make much sense coming from you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 (edited) are they the best jurists? Aren't they? What's not 'Best' about them? So far the only argument I've seen is 'They aren't white males and therefore they probably aren't the best'. Edit to add: The judges are selected from a pool of judges who have been vetted and approved for their potential appointments by Legal beagles of the provinces and federal government. They are in a pool for the sole reason that there's no way in hell any list of 'Best' could be made. Edited June 22, 2016 by Peter F Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 (edited) The judges are selected from a pool of judges who have been vetted and approved for their potential appointments by Legal beagles of the provinces and federal government.I agree that once a set of minimum requirements has been met it is hard to rank individual applications solely on their ability as jurists. The message that people should be taking away from this is not that the Liberals are appointing judges that suit their ideology (the Conservatives did the same). But that the judges sitting on the court benches have a bias that reflects the ideology of the political party that appoints them. This bias should undermine any claim that judges are impartial arbitrators that represent all Canadians. They are not much better than senators in that respect except judges have a lot more real power. Edited June 22, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 There are no competent non whites in the profession? Not even 12? This position doesn't make much sense coming from you Law schools crank out thousands of grads every year. Most of them are eventually admitted to the bar. They are all competent. That does not make them material for senior judicial appointments. Neither does having a vagina, brown skin, or a non hetero sexual orientation make anybody more than competent than being a white male. Those are metrics that should be irrelevant in assessing excellence, not competence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 They are not much better than senators in that respect except judges have a lot more real power. I disagree, the low water mark for Senators is very low. At least we have the suitable low water mark for the judges, and they are also held accountable through the appeals process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 (edited) Still waiting for evidence that they're not the best qualified. Have no conservative bloggers done the research to back up and the racist assertions in this thread yet? Edited June 22, 2016 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 I'm also still waiting for evidence of this contention: All the judges appointed are overtly political on the far left, most of them activists... Not a peep... This is tinfoil-hat "leftist conspiracy" kind of nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Still waiting for evidence that they're not the best qualified. Have no conservative bloggers done the research to back up and the racist assertions in this thread yet? How on Earth would one have evidence of that? The notion that something other than just their legal skills was considered in their appointments is not racist. The notion that it wasn't is just plain silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 How on Earth would one have evidence of that? The notion that something other than just their legal skills was considered in their appointments is not racist. The notion that it wasn't is just plain silly. The claim by the right-wingers on the forum is that they aren't qualified. Asking for evidence of this is pretty reasonable, unless all you want to do is fill the forum with sloganeering and partisan potshots. If you're going to make this claim, then put up or shut up. Then there can be a discussion. Just throwing shit on a wall and hoping some of it sticks isn't really a great way to discuss things like the appointment of these judges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 (edited) The claim by the right-wingers on the forum is that they aren't qualified. Asking for evidence of this is pretty reasonable, unless all you want to do is fill the forum with sloganeering and partisan potshots. If you're going to make this claim, then put up or shut up. Then there can be a discussion. Just throwing shit on a wall and hoping some of it sticks isn't really a great way to discuss things like the appointment of these judges. No it's not. Not by me, anyway. If you want to reply to me then read my posts or don't bother. Do you think their legal qualifications were the deciding factor in their appointments? I don't. The problem is that the left wingers on the forum are blinkered to the other reasons for the appointments. Just throwing shit on a wall (accusations of racism) and hoping some of it sticks isn't really a great way to discuss things like the appointment of these judges. Edited June 22, 2016 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Do you think their legal qualifications were the deciding factor in their appointments? I don't. I expect there were many factors considered, unlike those that think skin colour is the deciding factor. Can you tell me what the deciding factor was in appointing Marc Nadon & Vic Towes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 (edited) The problem is that the left wingers on the forum are blinkered to the other reasons for the appointments. Just throwing shit on a wall (accusations of racism) and hoping some of it sticks isn't really a great way to discuss things like the appointment of these judges. Who claimed that competence as a judge was the only deciding factor? Like ?Impact says, there were probably plenty of factors considered, competence as a judge being one of them. I'm glad that being a crappy ex-MP wasn't the only consideration, unlike Judge Toews. Edited June 22, 2016 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 I expect there were many factors considered, unlike those that think skin colour is the deciding factor. Can you tell me what the deciding factor was in appointing Marc Nadon & Vic Towes? Beats me, never heard of them. Are you agreeing politicians consider things other than competence when making appointments? Are we both racists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 22, 2016 Report Share Posted June 22, 2016 Who claimed that competence as a judge was the only deciding factor? Like ?Impact says, there were probably plenty of factors considered, competence as a judge being one of them. I'm glad that being a crappy ex-MP wasn't the only consideration, unlike Judge Toews. So we're agreed then. I knew I wasn't a racist. I was absolutely sure of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 Beats me, never heard of them. Are you agreeing politicians consider things other than competence when making appointments? Are we both racists? This whole thread is just stupid. Obviously appointments made by political parties are at the very least PARTLY political. And trying to read the tea-leaves and attribute exactly how much politics played into these decisions obviously futile. What exactly is this moronic thread even about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 This whole thread is just stupid. Obviously appointments made by political parties are at the very least PARTLY political. And trying to read the tea-leaves and attribute exactly how much politics played into these decisions obviously futile. What exactly is this moronic thread even about? Fun? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 Fun? I guess that must be it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 23, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 The claim by the right-wingers on the forum is that they aren't qualified. No, the claim is they aren't the most qualified. Technically, virtually any lawyer is 'qualified' to be a judge. It is clear the legal skills of these new judges was not foremost in the minds of the Liberal government, however. Their gender, political and social views and ethnicity were clearly considered much more important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 23, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 This whole thread is just stupid. Obviously appointments made by political parties are at the very least PARTLY political. And trying to read the tea-leaves and attribute exactly how much politics played into these decisions obviously futile. What exactly is this moronic thread even about? Here's a thought for you. It might be over your head, though. If you think a thread is stupid and don't know what it's about ... then why not just not post on it? Is that too complicated an idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 23, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 Who claimed that competence as a judge was the only deciding factor? Like ?Impact says, there were probably plenty of factors considered, competence as a judge being one of them. I'm glad that being a crappy ex-MP wasn't the only consideration, unlike Judge Toews. You talk like Vic Toews was the only MP appointed to the judiciary. The Liberals have appointed scores of ex-MPs to the judiciary over the years - and without a single word of criticism from you, I bet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 No, the claim is they aren't the most qualified A claim that is without any merit. What makes you think they are not the most qualified? Their non-whiteness? Their Gender? Is there some list somewhere that shows who is the most qualified? Something you can point to and say See? They ignored that? Anything at all besides gender or ethnicity obviously reducing qualificationess? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 No, the claim is they aren't the most qualified. That is true of almost every political appointment every. Also, I have yet to see your evidence. 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.