Liberals Finally Appoint New Judges

[cybercoma]

All language is interpreted. There's no way to get around that. You have a law that says "no motorized vehicles on the trails in the park." Does that mean someone with a motorized mobility scoooter can't be on the trails? Or does it just refer to cars. And if you write "cars," what about motorcycles? Vespas? Pickup trucks? SUVs? There is absolutely no way to get around interpretation. We rely on people who've studied the law, its history, and the philosophy behind it for their entire lives to interpret the law. No one is better qualified to do so. This recent movement by populists to turn laws into something that changes based on the whims of the electorate is not just ridiculous but actually dangerous.

[PIK]

Speaking of judges and I cant put up a link at the moment.(THE STAR) But if googled you will see a man get off of a DUI ,because his turban was not given back to him in 3 hrs. Question, what would happen if he had killed someone??

[WestCoastRunner]

Speaking of judges and I cant put up a link at the moment.(THE STAR) But if googled you will see a man get off of a DUI ,because his turban was not given back to him in 3 hrs. Question, what would happen if he had killed someone??

Question: Why would this be different than any other DUI charge that gets dropped because of someone's rights being denied? Oh wait, I know why you posted this. Because he has brown skin and wears a turban!

[?Impact]

because his turban was not given back to him in 3 hrs

Wrong. The man got off because the police who are charged with enforcing the law failed miserably in upholding the law. This is not about the man, it is about the systematic failure of the police force, well beyond the failure of a single officer. As bad as the problem of DUI is, the problem with the police is far worse.

[Guest]

The police should apologise about the turban, and then nail the ignorant git for driving while drunk.

[Argus]

Wrong. The man got off because the police who are charged with enforcing the law failed miserably in upholding the law. This is not about the man, it is about the systematic failure of the police force, well beyond the failure of a single officer. As bad as the problem of DUI is, the problem with the police is far worse.

So when the judge said it was about that one turban he was lying?

Do police regularly steal turbans and refuse to give them back? If so, cite please.

This doesn't punish the police, by the way, it punishes the people in the community where this moron lives.

[?Impact]

So when the judge said it was about that one turban he was lying?

You obviously didn't read the judgement, or even the article at the Star.

The police should apologise about the turban, and then nail the ignorant git for driving while drunk.

No, then we will have the police breaking into everyones home and searching for evidence, and if they just happen to find a thief they will apologize to him and then nail him. We have civil rights for a reason, if you want to live in a totalitarian state then I suggest you move and don't try and destroy my Canada.

[Guest]

You obviously didn't read the judgement, or even the article at the Star.

No, then we will have the police breaking into everyones home and searching for evidence, and if they just happen to find a thief they will apologize to him and then nail him. We have civil rights for a reason, if you want to live in a totalitarian state then I suggest you move and don't try and destroy my Canada.

I didn't read any of it. Just this thread. The turban is the start down the slippery slope to North Korea, obviously, and I had no idea. I also had no idea your Canada was so fragile.

My Canada could stand to see the tosser locked up, turban and all.

Edited July 6, 2016 by bcsapper

[?Impact]

I also had no idea your Canada was so fragile.

Who said my Canada is fragile? I pointed out why we can't head down that slippery slope, and thankfully there is strong enough support in Canada for the rule of law that it will survive.

[cybercoma]

So we've moved on from idiotic racist denouncements of judges that not a single poster was able to back up. Now we're talking about some random Sikh with a DUI? How about starting a new thread instead of deflecting from the embarrassing stomping that took place here.

[Guest]

So we've moved on from idiotic racist denouncements of judges that not a single poster was able to back up. Now we're talking about some random Sikh with a DUI? How about starting a new thread instead of deflecting from the embarrassing stomping that took place here.

We can always go back. Do you reckon the appearance of diversity and the potential for some assenting voices played no part in the right honourable one's choices?

[cybercoma]

We can always go back. Do you reckon the appearance of diversity and the potential for some assenting voices played no part in the right honourable one's choices?

Will you ever get it through your head that this is a red herring? You keep trotting out this BS and it's been explained to you repeatedly in this thread that you're completely missing the point.

Show me that here judges are LESS QUALIFIED than your "non-diversity" choices. That's it. Then you can talk about how they're nothing more than diversity hires or that played a "more important role" in their hiring. Until you do that, claiming that they were hired for their skin colour alone is nothing more than racist garbage.

[msj]

I think it requires a Venn diagram with the two circles overlapping (or more).

Maybe lets use three:

The first one is "white men."

It overlaps with the second circle in the middle which is "qualified to be a judge."

This circle overlaps to some extent with the third circle which is "visible minorities/women."

I assume Trudeau picked all his candidates from the second circle.

Some of these candidates also fall in the "white men" circle and some fall in the "visible minority/women" circle which may have had an effect on his selection too (but to what extent who knows).

Some people will only focus on the "white men" and "visible minority/women" circles while ignoring the qualified circle.

Those same people will also spend 15 pages without coming up with any other evidence for why either one set or the other, or both, are qualified or not.

So, yeah, big waste of pixels, time, bandwidth etc...

[Guest]

Will you ever get it through your head that this is a red herring? You keep trotting out this BS and it's been explained to you repeatedly in this thread that you're completely missing the point.

Show me that here judges are LESS QUALIFIED than your "non-diversity" choices. That's it. Then you can talk about how they're nothing more than diversity hires or that played a "more important role" in their hiring. Until you do that, claiming that they were hired for their skin colour alone is nothing more than racist garbage.

I don't have any non diversity choices, nor do I think they were hired for their skin colour alone. You used the term "red Herring" so one would assume you know what it means. How come you trotted out one of the most boring ones ever?

[WestCoastRunner]

Will you ever get it through your head that this is a red herring? You keep trotting out this BS and it's been explained to you repeatedly in this thread that you're completely missing the point.

Show me that here judges are LESS QUALIFIED than your "non-diversity" choices. That's it. Then you can talk about how they're nothing more than diversity hires or that played a "more important role" in their hiring. Until you do that, claiming that they were hired for their skin colour alone is nothing more than racist garbage.

This is something that women have fought against over and over and over again. It's no different now with the bs that's been put forward in this thread against skin colour.

[cybercoma]

I don't have any non diversity choices, nor do I think they were hired for their skin colour alone. You used the term "red Herring" so one would assume you know what it means. How come you trotted out one of the most boring ones ever?

So you have nothing to say about their qualifications then? Get back to me when you do because that's where this thread ended.

[Guest]

So you have nothing to say about their qualifications then? Get back to me when you do because that's where this thread ended.

I do. I said it more than once. I don't think their qualifications were the number one reason they were hired. What do you think?

[cybercoma]

What makes you think that? How are their qualifications deficient that you'd say they weren't the number one reason?

[Guest]

What makes you think that? How are their qualifications deficient that you'd say they weren't the number one reason?

It's an opinion. A fairly reasonable one, I thought, based on a general understanding of the behaviour of politicians. It does seem to be unduly irritating to some people.

Edited July 8, 2016 by bcsapper

[dialamah]

It's an opinion. A fairly reasonable one, I thought, based on a general understanding of the behaviour of politicians. It does seem to be unduly irritating to some people.

In that case, do you think any judges under any PM have ever been selected based on their merit first, and other factors second/third/fourth/etc.?

[Guest]

In that case, do you think any judges under any PM have ever been selected based on their merit first, and other factors second/third/fourth/etc.?

No I don't.

Answer me this, if you will. If all of the most qualified people had been white males between the ages of 50 - 60, with PC leanings, do you think JT would have hired them?

[dialamah]

No I don't.

Answer me this, if you will. If all of the most qualified people had been white males between the ages of 50 - 60, with PC leanings, do you think JT would have hired them?

If every other option was worse, then yes.

The problem is "qualified" means different things to different people, and different things to the same people in different contexts.

How does one assess a judge's qualifications anyway? University marks? Successful prosecutions or defense while lawyering? Types of cases tried while on the bench? Good works in the community? Clubs they belong to? Stable family life? Similar political views? Coherence in their arguments? Media savvy? Gender? Ethnicity? Impartiality? A little bit of all of that? Once you've defined what you are looking for, you have to decide how much weight to give each criteria; no point in appointing a liberal-leaning bisexual Asian female if she can't mount a coherent argument and is regularly lampooned in the media.

Despite the implication in the OP, white heterosexual men are not automatically more qualified than anyone else, unless you are selecting only for being white, male and heterosexual. Certainly most of JT's selections are not qualified for the job under that criteria, but IMO, that is the least important criteria.

[Guest]

If every other option was worse, then yes.

Well, you'd have to define worse, but I don't think anyone that bad would have been on the shortlist.

[dialamah]

Oops I misread your post .... I think he might of hired the 2 or 3 least PC of them - for optics - but then chosen from the less "qualified" group.

Edited July 8, 2016 by dialamah

[cybercoma]

Well, you'd have to define worse, but I don't think anyone that bad would have been on the shortlist.

No. It's for the idiots claiming Trudeau didn't pick the "most qualified" to define what worse is since they're the ones claiming these are worse choices. The only reason I have from people in this thread so far is because they're not white. Once again, if there's a problem with these choices or if there's better candidates you would think someone could point them out.