Liberals Finally Appoint New Judges

[Argus]

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 ...?

You will never catch me in a lie because I have no need of telling them.

Then again, I will never catch you posting anything of value, since you are incapable of doing so.

[Big Guy]

You will never catch me in a lie because I have no need of telling them.

Then again, I will never catch you posting anything of value, since you are incapable of doing so.

Huh? I guess you are really two or three different people who are using the same avatar? You cannot be two people at the same time. You are either misrepresenting yourself or you have multiple personalities. Too bad, so sad, you can't talk yourself out of this corner of your own making.

[jacee]

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,...

No let's not bother about the US court.

Ours is working well, consensus despite what party appointed them.

"high degree of legal skills."

As you said.

.

Edited June 27, 2016 by jacee

[msj]

Because they're not white, I guess. No other argument has been made.

Not a racist though. That's name calling.

That would be calling a spade a spade but we must be politically correct, don't you know?

[Guest]

They were appointed in order to provide further evidence of the desire for diversity by the Liberals, and to try and ensure agreeable decisions in the future. Their qualifications are not actually in question. They just weren't the number one reason for their appointments.

Just my opinion, though. I don't have JT's diary entry for those days or anything like that.

There. Spade. Done.

[msj]

Sure. As any PM does. Harper did this and likely selected more white men for all I know.

But that's not what CC is talking about so your point is moot.

[Guest]

Sure. As any PM does. Harper did this and likely selected more white men for all I know.

But that's not what CC is talking about so your point is moot.

It is what I was talking about, and CC answered a few times, so I don't think it's moot.

I really can't understand the charge of racism against anyone who would say these are politically motivated appointees. It's like, DUH!!!

[msj]

Of course they are politically motivated. I doubt anyone disagrees with that.

But certain people seem to want to go on about the race of the selected justices when the rest of us know that it is their politics that won them the jobs (along with being competent lawyers).

[Guest]

Of course they are politically motivated. I doubt anyone disagrees with that.

But certain people seem to want to go on about the race of the selected justices when the rest of us know that it is their politics that won them the jobs (along with being competent lawyers).

I think there are three things that matter. Their qualifications, their propensity to agree with JT, and the appearance of diversity. Their race would certainly play a part in the latter. That would make JT the racist, of course. Probably not go down too well here...

Edit> Are we allowed to say JT? I can't remember.

Edited June 27, 2016 by bcsapper

[Bob Macadoo]

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

Why? You only want the perfect GPA doctor? Happy hunting.

[Argus]

Huh? I guess you are really two or three different people who are using the same avatar? You cannot be two people at the same time. You are either misrepresenting yourself or you have multiple personalities. Too bad, so sad, you can't talk yourself out of this corner of your own making.

My God, this is childish, infantile, really.

Because I said, in a quick comment on a status update (!) "I was born here" rather than get into the subtlety of explaining I was born to Canadian parents who were, at the time, posted to an RCAF base in Germany you are hopping up and down gleefully as if you've caught me in some kind of big lie that will finally give your pathetic ongoing attacks against me a veneer of substance. Your life must be very sad that this is the best you can do in hopes of garnering respectability.

Maybe if you took the time to get informed on a few issues, and wrote coherent, thoughtful replies, you'd do better. Assuming, of course, that is within your capability. I'm probably being overly generous in such an assumption, of course.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

Of course they are politically motivated. I doubt anyone disagrees with that.

But certain people seem to want to go on about the race of the selected justices when the rest of us know that it is their politics that won them the jobs (along with being competent lawyers).

So you're willing to admit their ideological beliefs were important but still deny, despite the lopsided numbers, that their minority status played a part?

[msj]

So you're willing to admit their ideological beliefs were important but still deny, despite the lopsided numbers, that their minority status played a part?

I think the order is this: legally qualified? Check (This is the most important factor since one cannot become a justice without these qualifications).

Liberal point of view? Check (Second most important factor - no matter who is PM - when it was Harper it was "Conservative point of view?" Check).

Fits gender/racial profile? Check (Not a necessarily important factor but certainly one of optics - assuming #1 and #2 are met then this is a possible bonus).

Now, to focus on sorely just the gender/racial factors as the point of criticism is where I have a problem.

We know they are legally qualified and no one has come up with substantive reasons proving otherwise.

The political bias is there no matter who selects so this is a non-issue to all but the most blatantly hypocritical.

The gender/racial issue is a minor issue, at best, and possibly a non-issue, given that the selected candidates meet the other criteria to become justices.

So the criticism can be and should be: prove that they are not legally qualified. This means focusing on their legal accomplishments - their education, their jobs, their performance etc...

If you can come up with proof that they are incompetent in their jobs then I can see where one can argue about race/gender being a determining factor.

Until then, it looks like this: you calling them unqualified simply because of their race/gender.

[cybercoma]

"looks like"

[Big Guy]

My God, this is childish, infantile, really.

Because I said, in a quick comment on a status update (!) "I was born here" rather than get into the subtly of explaining I was born to Canadian parents who were, at the time, posted to an RCAF base in Germany you are hopping up and down gleefully as if you've caught me in some kind of big lie that will finally give your pathetic ongoing attacks against me a veneer of substance. Your life must be very sad that this is the best you can do in hopes of garnering respectability.

Maybe if you took the time to get informed on a few issues, and wrote coherent, thoughtful replies, you'd do better. Assuming, of course, that is within your capability. I'm probably being overly generous in such an assumption, of course.

It really is infantile to lie - most people grow out of it. So it was a "slip" and the fact that you are a millionaire is also a "slip". What other "facts" that you share are "slips"? I take no enjoyment pointing out that you seem to become a different person when you chose to - perhaps you are unable to control those reactions.

Keep that in mind the next time you criticize somebody on this board.

As to the evaluation of my participation on this board I will leave that to those who are interested and I can at least guarantee they are not lies.

[Argus]

I think the order is this: legally qualified? Check (This is the most important factor since one cannot become a justice without these qualifications).

Liberal point of view? Check (Second most important factor - no matter who is PM - when it was Harper it was "Conservative point of view?" Check).

Fits gender/racial profile? Check (Not a necessarily important factor but certainly one of optics - assuming #1 and #2 are met then this is a possible bonus).

Now, to focus on sorely just the gender/racial factors as the point of criticism is where I have a problem.

According to the Canadian bar, the standard for being 'qualified' to be a judge is simply that you are a member of the bar and have been practicing law for five years. So virtually ALL lawyers would meet the minimum qualification. I put it to you that there would be a huge variance between the 'qualified' people, though, as far as quality of their legal skills and wisdom goes.

You suggest the gender/racial profile is not necessarily important, and yet only 20% of those appointed were white men despite white men making up the great majority of this country's most experienced senior lawyers. Most minority lawyers, and a big chunk of female lawyers are younger and newer to the profession.

So it seems patently obvious to me that the Liberals bypassed all those experienced white male lawyers in order to select less experienced, less qualified minority/gay/female/disabled lawyers. Why would they do this? We all know that. And Bcsapper has pretty much already stated as much. The Liberals are a party of style, not substance. Appointing lots of minorities makes them look good to their adoring left wing fanbase, and that's really all they care about.

[Argus]

It really is infantile to lie -

I think I made it fairly clear, even to those of limited intellect, that I didn't lie at all. That you've seized upon this as some kind of "aha" moment only shows the depths of your immaturity and bitterness. But carry on. I'm sure you'll enjoy your next suspension as much as you did the last one.

[msj]

So it seems patently obvious to me that the Liberals bypassed all those experienced white male lawyers in order to select less experienced, less qualified minority/gay/female/disabled lawyers. Why would they do this? We all know that. And Bcsapper has pretty much already stated as much. The Liberals are a party of style, not substance. Appointing lots of minorities makes them look good to their adoring left wing fanbase, and that's really all they care about.

No, you have not presented any evidence to support this claim.

All you have done is stated the racial/gender characteristics and expect us to go along with this idea that this somehow makes them less qualified than white men.

I do not think gender/race is all that important when it comes to being qualified - either the candidate has the requisite experience/education or not.

I doubt if one split the talent pools up into gender/racial divides you will find a lack of qualified people from this pool or that pool.

Focusing on the qualifications, or lack thereof, rather than the gender/race would be a smarter approach to this issue rather than simply claiming that white men are a bigger pool and therefore there should be more of them.

[taxme]

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'.

Hang in there butterfly on that one.

Edited June 27, 2016 by taxme

[taxme]

I'm sure the bench is still well represented by white men.

One is too many in today's leftist Marxist Canada. We need less or none on the benches of all governments in Canada. We live in a multicultural society now where white people need not really apply. We need a moratorium on all white immigration for awhile.into Canada until they become a small minority and then they can be told by the non-white majority to just shut the heck up and go sit in the corner where you white people belong.

Exciting days ahead for old whitey. They keep asking for it, and they are going to get it right up the you no where. Enjoy.

[taxme]

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/

Hey, white people voted for this Marxist leftist social justice warrior and they must now pay for it because of their foolishness. They have signed their own death warrants, the fools. The white people are their own worse enemy. They keep pushing for their own demise. But thank gawd that we are not the only white country doing this. Europe,Australia and the US of A are also on the same path also. Only time will tell but then does whitey care?

[cybercoma]

Did we ever find out what made these judges poorly qualified?

[eyeball]

They're not right-wing conservatives.

[eyeball]

They're elites. Apparently that's just as bad.

[cannuck]

Sunny Ways is just doing what he is constitutionally permitted to do.

If you don't want jurists from the left, don't elect governments from the left.

If you want some kind of judiciary that is focused on the law instead of the perceived intent as interpreted today, change the various acts under which appointments are made - or far better - change our political system to be representative instead of partisan.