Liberals Finally Appoint New Judges

[Smallc]

True enough. But we're talking about judges. The two primary requirements for the job are legal acumen and judgement - which is a difficult thing to test for but possible. No other criteria comes remotely close in importance. You can make a case for administrative abilities being important. You cannot make a case for skin colour being important or even relevant to the job.

I haven't been convinced that legal acumen and judgement weren't criteria 1 and 2, and that diversity didn't come after. Edited June 25, 2016 by Smallc

[TimG]

I haven't been convinced that legal acumen and judgement weren't criteria 1 and 2, and that diversity didn't come after.

That is because the two sides are talking past each other.

Under the 'diversity model' all candidates are expected to meet some minimum requirements but all people who meet those minimums are considered to be equally capable of doing the job. This allows the diversity model proponents to use racist criteria to select candidates.

Under the 'merit model' all candidates are expected to meet some minimum requirements but all people who meet the minimums are not equallly capable of doing the job. This means it is necessary to further filter the candidates by merit to find the best candidate. This model completely ignores race or gender and only looks at competence.

The observation in this case is that the majority of the candidates that meet the minimum requirements are white males so simple statistics dictates that the 'best candidates' should include a fair number of white males. The fact that white males are under represented tells with a high degree of certainty that some of the picks were less qualified and were picked only because they had the right race or gender.

Whether this is a problem or not depends on whether you believe in the 'diversity model' or the 'merit model'.

Edited June 25, 2016 by TimG

[Argus]

An interesting aspect of this is that there has been virtually zero press interest in these appointments. Even though these are the Liberals' first judicial appointments, even though the country has been labouring under a shortage for some time, the only media which covered it, as far as I've been able to find, is the Globe and Mail, with the one article I posted. I haven't been able to find ANYTHING else on the internet. Separate searches on news sites like the CBC to the Sun, show nothing.

[Bob Macadoo]

This model completely ignores race or gender and only looks at competence. ....Whether this is a problem or not depends on whether you believe in the 'diversity model' or the 'merit model'.

There's actually a different qualification that's being looked past....."judgement development or background". You've all assumed it's solely based on skin colour, in lieu of background. Inner city vs. Suburbs......prep school vs. crowded public.....

[?Impact]

Another day, and still nothing. This is ask #5, please provide information on why one of those judges overlooked should have been selected over those that were (other than being white).

I suggest looking at the #BeckyWithTheBadGrades thread over in Business & Economy, you might learn a thing or two.

[TimG]

There's actually a different qualification that's being looked past....."judgement development or background". You've all assumed it's solely based on skin colour, in lieu of background. Inner city vs. Suburbs......prep school vs. crowded public.....

Your qualification is noted. The 'diversity model' does allow advocates to invent whatever criteria they want and use it to justify selection of a candidate. It is presumption that the only criteria was race or gender.

Personally, I think the primary criteria was adherence to progressive views on justice. It is a way of injecting bias into the system that suits the Liberal government.

[Big Guy]

That is because the two sides are talking past each other.

Under the 'diversity model' all candidates are expected to meet some minimum requirements but all people who meet those minimums are considered to be equally capable of doing the job. This allows the diversity model proponents to use racist criteria to select candidates.

Under the 'merit model' all candidates are expected to meet some minimum requirements but all people who meet the minimums are not equallly capable of doing the job. This means it is necessary to further filter the candidates by merit to find the best candidate. This model completely ignores race or gender and only looks at competence.

The observation in this case is that the majority of the candidates that meet the minimum requirements are white males so simple statistics dictates that the 'best candidates' should include a fair number of white males. The fact that white males are under represented tells with a high degree of certainty that some of the picks were less qualified and were picked only because they had the right race or gender.

Whether this is a problem or not depends on whether you believe in the 'diversity model' or the 'merit model'.

Maybe females and members of the non-white race are better qualified and smarter than those white male candidates but have never been judged (sic) objectively?

Oh those were the good old days when those white British male ex-patriots ran this country and when we let in only a few of "those people" from other countries!

Edited June 26, 2016 by Big Guy

[eyeball]

I don't understand the left's obsession with race.

You've misconstrued the situation. That obsession is actually just the left's growing annoyance at the right's fascination with racialism.

[bush_cheney2004]

You've misconstrued the situation. That obsession is actually just the left's growing annoyance at the right's fascination with racialism.

That's funny even if it made any sense....'cause it doesn't. The "left" is quite busy inventing "racialised" terms like "visible minority", "people of colour", or just plain old "non-white".

[eyeball]

They should go with humans or maybe Terrans.

Trouble is the righties would be whining about how collectivist that sounds.

[overthere]

They should go with the very best, most qualified jurists.

[Bob Macadoo]

They should go with the very best, most qualified jurists.

There is no such thing; qualified is a state of being not a graded adjective. If you think some have more qualifications than others than those requirements need to be stated so they can be evaluated. If the criterion that you must have tried at least 5 drug cases or you must have made 3 arguments for interpreting the constitution that's fine. If however you posess the necessary qualifications then you could be a poop flinging chimp and you can perform the job as necessary to the satisfaction of those who set the requirements.

Does it matter that White Guy A scored a 95 in Jurisprudence compared to Brown Gal B scored a 93 if the neccessary level to attain skill in Jurisprudence is >90?

[Argus]

Does it matter that White Guy A scored a 95 in Jurisprudence compared to Brown Gal B scored a 93 if the neccessary level to attain skill in Jurisprudence is >90?

Yes, that is a common argument of the affirmative action set. Of course, what they need to do in order to make it even slightly sane is to lower the standards, which is generally what they do. Since EVERYONE passes, then EVERYONE is qualified. Of course, in something like this it's far from obvious in which ways the standards have been lowered. But you can see it's fairly blatant in the hiring of police and firelighters.

[Bob Macadoo]

Yes, that is a common argument of the affirmative action set. Of course, what they need to do in order to make it even slightly sane is to lower the standards, which is generally what they do. Since EVERYONE passes, then EVERYONE is qualified. Of course, in something like this it's far from obvious in which ways the standards have been lowered. But you can see it's fairly blatant in the hiring of police and firelighters.

So a 90 is lowering standards? Why pass anyone then who doesn't achieve 100?

[Argus]

So a 90 is lowering standards? Why pass anyone then who doesn't achieve 100?

You don't know what the standard for legal competence was. We're not told.

We can clearly see how standards were drastically lowered for policing and firefighting, but we have little idea what the standard is for judges. As far as I'm aware the bar associations believe any practicing lawyer is qualified to be a judge. Yet there is an immense difference in the capabilities, experience and knowledge of the most competent vs the least competent of those lawyers.

[Smallc]

You don't know what the standard for legal competence was.

That's why no one buys your complaints.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Smallc

[Bob Macadoo]

Yet there is an immense difference in the capabilities, experience and knowledge of the most competent vs the least competent of those lawyers.

Those things contribute to but do not define qualification. Capabilities and experience are subjective evaluators unless you have clear definition of competancy that includes objective criteria. I wish every job was defined this way but as you said "you can't redefine the vote after you've lost."

[Argus]

Those things contribute to but do not define qualification. Capabilities and experience are subjective evaluators unless you have clear definition of competancy that includes objective criteria.

There should be some fairly obvious criteria for a judge. I'm far from an expert but every lawyer knows who are the best in their profession, and you can judge them by the number of cases they've handled and by the insight and imagination and wisdom of their own words during legal disputes. There aren't always easy ways to judge one's skill, but the papers lawyers have written would be a fairly clear demonstration. Certainly those papers are gone over with a fine-tooth comb in order to select lawyers who are believed to have the proper ideological outlook to suit the party performing the appointment.

[Bob Macadoo]

There should be some fairly obvious criteria for a judge. ... Certainly those papers are gone over with a fine-tooth comb in order to select lawyers who are believed to have the proper ideological outlook to suit the party performing the appointment.

As I am certain those papers are gone over for contextual argument, precidence research, interpretation and passion to determine who can best cover all areas. Should we evaluate on their cases they were vested in or should we only include those they would be divested from (ie. murder defense, marijuana prosecution, etc.) As I said...subjective.....we're not hiring a typist here so the most wpm wins.

[jacee]

There should be some fairly obvious criteria for a judge. I'm far from an expert but every lawyer knows who are the best in their profession, and you can judge them by the number of cases they've handled and by the insight and imagination and wisdom of their own words during legal disputes. There aren't always easy ways to judge one's skill, but the papers lawyers have written would be a fairly clear demonstration. Certainly those papers are gone over with a fine-tooth comb in order to select lawyers who are believed to have the proper ideological outlook to suit the party performing the appointment.

I'm sure Harper did that.

But he was constantly frustrated that they didn't do his bidding.

There must actually (gasp!) be some professional integrity in the Judicial Branch.

That's why we have three Branches of government: Checks and balances on partisan politicians and the corporatocracy.

.

[Big Guy]

As I am certain those papers are gone over for contextual argument, precidence research, interpretation and passion to determine who can best cover all areas. Should we evaluate on their cases they were vested in or should we only include those they would be divested from (ie. murder defense, marijuana prosecution, etc.) As I said...subjective.....we're not hiring a typist here so the most wpm wins.

Perhaps this may help:

http://www.fja-cmf.gc.ca/appointments-nominations/assessment-evaluation-eng.html

[Argus]

I'm sure Harper did that.

But he was constantly frustrated that they didn't do his bidding.

This is a Leftist meme which greatly varies from reality. Harper had no more problems from the judiciary than the governments which preceded his.

And clearly he wasn't appoint those who would "do his bidding" but those with a high degree of legal skills.

There must actually (gasp!) be some professional integrity in the Judicial Branch.

Not based on observed fact. If you look at the US Supreme Court, as an example, the ideological motivation behind judicial decisions is laid painfully bare. Now that there are four liberal judges and four conservative judges they find themselves unable to make decisions in many cases because the two sides split evenly on decisions. Funny, isn't it, how four 'liberal' judges all decide the constitution means one thing, and the four 'conservative' judges all decide it means something else.

[overthere]

There is no such thing; qualified is a state of being not a graded adjective. If you think some have more qualifications than others than those requirements need to be stated so they can be evaluated. If the criterion that you must have tried at least 5 drug cases or you must have made 3 arguments for interpreting the constitution that's fine. If however you posess the necessary qualifications then you could be a poop flinging chimp and you can perform the job as necessary to the satisfaction of those who set the requirements.

Does it matter that White Guy A scored a 95 in Jurisprudence compared to Brown Gal B scored a 93 if the neccessary level to attain skill in Jurisprudence is >90?

I hope that you are never, ever in charge of licensing medical students.

[cybercoma]

Now we're talking about lowered standards. Someone ask Argus to connect his "lowered standards" argument to the appointment of these justices. Not a single poster has shown how these justices lack qualifications and now he's invoking "lowered standards." How does he know the standards were lowered? Because they're not white, I guess. No other argument has been made.

Not a racist though. That's name calling.

Edited June 26, 2016 by cybercoma

[Big Guy]

This is a Leftist meme which greatly varies from reality. Harper had no more problems from the judiciary than the governments which preceded his.

And clearly he wasn't appoint those who would "do his bidding" but those with a high degree of legal skills.

Not based on observed fact. If you look at the US Supreme Court, as an example, the ideological motivation behind judicial decisions is laid painfully bare. Now that there are four liberal judges and four conservative judges they find themselves unable to make decisions in many cases because the two sides split evenly on decisions. Funny, isn't it, how four 'liberal' judges all decide the constitution means one thing, and the four 'conservative' judges all decide it means something else.

And this is based on the fact that you are reflecting the view of a millionaire born in Canada or a professional born in Germany or ...?

Which Argus is this one?