Trudeau appoints supreme court judge

[Argus]

Apparently they found one of the few Newfoundland judges who is, or at least, claims to be bilingual. Malcolm Rowe applied for the job himself, filling out a questionnaire.  No idea if he's very competent as a judge, but I understand that wasn't really important.

I've been saying for years now that the Supreme Court makes law, by the way. All the lefties sneer at this and say no, no, of course we don't have unelected people making laws! Only parliament does that. Only this new justice disagrees.

"The Supreme Court is not, primarily, a court of correction. Rather, the role of the Court is to make definitive statements of the law, which are then applied by trial judges and courts of appeal. Thus, the Supreme Court judges ordinarily make law, rather than simply applying it," Rowe says.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-supreme-court-newfoundlander-1.3808384

 

[Sipper]

Not only do these boneheads make law, they egregiously make bad law - with no one to call them on it! How does anyone deal with THAT?

[cybercoma]

58 minutes ago, Argus said:

I've been saying for years now that the Supreme Court makes law, by the way. All the lefties sneer at this and say no

Not just leftists. Anybody who understands our legal system could tell you this. Hell, someone who's taken a high school civics class could tell you this.

[TimG]

3 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

Not just leftists. Anybody who understands our legal system could tell you this. Hell, someone who's taken a high school civics class could tell you this.

Well someone should explain that to the newly appointed SCC judge. 

It seems that he has blown the whistle on the fiction that you and others insist on clinging to.

Edited October 17, 2016 by TimG

[msj]

Oh look, another topic that will become a matter of a candidate is proven to be qualified but we have no ability to determine if he is the best candidate because we lack the details of the process and were not involved in the selection. 

 

 

 

[The_Squid]

24 minutes ago, Sipper said:

Not only do these boneheads make law, they egregiously make bad law - with no one to call them on it! How does anyone deal with THAT?

Please....   give us details on these "bad laws" they created.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

"The Supreme Court is not, primarily, a court of correction. Rather, the role of the Court is to make definitive statements of the law, which are then applied by trial judges and courts of appeal. Thus, the Supreme Court judges ordinarily make law, rather than simply applying it," Rowe says.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-supreme-court-newfoundlander-1.3808384

This statement is horribly frightening, and should disqualify him from the position outright.

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm actually very surprised the SCC pick wasn't a woman or a minority.

[TimG]

3 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

This statement is horribly frightening, and should disqualify him from the position outright.

Why? He will fit in perfectly with the current crop of judges. 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

This statement is horribly frightening, and should disqualify him from the position outright.

I agree. The court is and should primarily be exactly the opposite of what he said, a court of correction.

Ironic that the OP views it's corrective capacity as law making.  These are sure weird times we live in.

[?Impact]

Two points.

This judge worked for the federal government for 5 years, and then a law firm in Ottawa. I expect he does have French skills, although the level of them is unknown. I see no reason to doubt his statements to that effect. Additionally he was deeply involved in a fisheries dispute with France, so that may also have been a more recent experience where French was an asset and used.

The quote above is not a direct quote, not sure what the source Argus used but here is a more complete quote to better understand the context:  The Supreme Court is not, primarily, a court of correction. Rather, the role of the Court is to make definitive statements of the law which are then applied by trial judges and courts of appeal. Through the leave to appeal process, the Court chooses areas of the law in which it wishes to make a definitive statement. Thus, the Supreme Court judges ordinarily make law, rather than simply applying it. The Court deals more with constitutional, public law and criminal matters, as well as aboriginal and treaty rights and less with private law. Nonetheless, it remains important for the Court to tum its attention to private law, especially where jurisprudence among the courts of appeal is inconsistent. A further responsibility is to serve as the final court of appeal on matters relating to Quebec's Civil Code. Finally, for issues of over-arching significance for the country, the Court provides an authoritative decision that only it can provide.

Edited October 18, 2016 by ?Impact
add link to questionnaire where quote was taken

[Argus]

17 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I'm actually very surprised the SCC pick wasn't a woman or a minority.

They couldn't find one in Newfoundland who was also bilingual. I mean, how many bilingual judges do you think there are in Newfoundland anyway?

[Argus]

14 hours ago, ?Impact said:

The quote above is not a direct quote, 

The one you supplied while longer, does not in any way contradict the original as published by the CBC. He believes the role of the court is to make law, not simply apply it. 

Edited October 18, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

18 hours ago, The_Squid said:

Please....   give us details on these "bad laws" they created.

Why? Do you think it's okay for unelected people to write laws so long as you agree with those laws?

[?Impact]

49 minutes ago, Argus said:

The one you supplied while longer, does not in any way contradict the original as published by the CBC. He believes the role of the court is to make law, not simply apply it. 

I would not have used his words, but if you read the rest of what he says the context makes sense. The point is that the Supreme court cannot appeal all cases, that is why we have the various appeals courts around the country. The Supreme court picks the cases it hears based on their merit to change how law is interpreted. Usually they are because the written laws are themselves contradictory, and we can thank our incompetent Parliamentarians for that, and those contradictions need to be resolved. That is why many of the Supreme court cases are based on the Constitution Act, specifically the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Supreme Court doe not write laws, it can however point out the errors in the written laws and declare ones based on a hierarchy of laws to be invalid. Parliament is charged with fixing their mistakes, but as we have seen they are often totally incompetent at that. Take the recent case in Alberta (Travis Vader) where a judge referenced an invalid section of the Criminal code. That was declared invalid by the Supreme Court way back in Brian Mulroney's day, and he and all subsequent governments failed to address it. This guy has a good chance of getting off on appeal not just due to the incompetence of that trial judge, but the gross negligence of elected officials. Here is a list of justice ministers that were totally incompetent that hold responsibility for that egregious error:

• Kim Campbell
• Pierre Blais 
• Allan Rock 
• Anne McLellan
• Martin Cauchon
• Irwin Cotler
• Vic Toews
• Rob Nicholson
• Peter MacKay
• Jody Wilson-Raybould

Perhaps each should be fined $1000 for every day they were in office. When will we hold our elected officials to account?

Edited October 18, 2016 by ?Impact

[Queenmandy85]

Impact asked: " When will we hold our elected officials to account?"

Next election day. 

[?Impact]

8 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Impact asked: " When will we hold our elected officials to account?"

Next election day. 

Yet in the case I pointed out, that logic hasn't worked for over 30 years and 10 different justice ministers. Who is going to write our laws? 

[Queenmandy85]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

Yet in the case I pointed out, that logic hasn't worked for over 30 years and 10 different justice ministers. Who is going to write our laws? 

The problem is the decline in participation by the electorate. Politics in Canada used to be our national sport. We were very good at it. However, it has become a spectator sport rather than participatory. It is not enough to get out and vote. If people want to hold politicians to account, they have to get out and nominate and elect people who will perform well. If you don't campaign, you can't complain. 

If we elect good politicians, they will write good laws and the SCC will not have to do it for them.

[overthere]

Quote

Prior to his judicial appointment, Rowe worked as a senior bureaucrat, and secretary to the cabinet under Liberal Premier Brian Tobin's government.

So he is a white Liberal male.

two out of those three 'qualifications' are a surprise.

[The_Squid]

54 minutes ago, overthere said:

So he is a white Liberal male.

two out of those three 'qualifications' are a surprise.

How do you know that this judge votes for the Liberal Party?  Is he a member of the Liberal Party?  How do you know this?

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, overthere said:

So he is a white Liberal male.

Tobin's government, how many decades ago was that? You realize the Tories have been in power in Newfoundland for the past 15 years up until last fall when the people of Newfoundland were so sick of the federal Conservatives that they tossed the provincial PCs as well.

Edited October 18, 2016 by ?Impact

[Moonlight Graham]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

They couldn't find one in Newfoundland who was also bilingual. I mean, how many bilingual judges do you think there are in Newfoundland anyway?

A quarter of a million billion?

[overthere]

1 hour ago, The_Squid said:

How do you know that this judge votes for the Liberal Party?  Is he a member of the Liberal Party?  How do you know this?

Read the article.  He was a senior, politcial appointee of the Nfld Liberal govt.

 

Now he is appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

 

Yes, I know you applaud that connection. 

[overthere]

38 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Tobin's government, how many decades ago was that? You realize the Tories have been in power in Newfoundland for the past 15 years up until last fall when the people of Newfoundland were so sick of the federal Conservatives that they tossed the provincial PCs as well.

I'm sure you have a point there somewhere.  Could you highlight or bold it for me?

[Moonlight Graham]

I like the picture the media is using of him.  Water in the background, like he's on a boat or something.  Looks like an old fisherman in good ol' Newfie land!  Yeah right.