Argus Posted December 30, 2017 Report Share Posted December 30, 2017 There was so much hyperbole surrounding Harper and the judicial system. There was so much bleating and whining and hysteria around every judicial appointment as the progressives feared Harper would appoint troglodytes and retrograde arch conservatives to the bench. Yet after ten years the court hasn't really changed much. It's just as much a body of busybodies who think they are the ultimate rulers of the country as it was when he appointed his first judge. I think this column by Selley is a fairly coherent explanation for how the judiciary has gone awry, and why it would be almost impossible for the supreme court to ever take on the tone of an unbiased arbiter of the constitutionality of legislation. There simply isn't the mindset among Canadian judges that parliament writes laws and the courts simply compare them to the constitution to ensure they're legal. “It is not the role of this Court to transform all policy choices it deems worthy into constitutional imperatives,” was written in dissent by two of his SC judges, yet that is very far from the mentality, not just among judges but among the legal community as a whole. http://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-stephen-harper-left-the-supreme-court-much-as-he-found-it-unfortunately-for-conservatives#comments-area Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 31, 2017 Report Share Posted December 31, 2017 The hyperbole was entirely from people who complained bitterly about the SC thwarting the overtly right-wing legislation Harper wanted to pass - legislation that would clearly never pass a Charter challenge. Speaking of hyperbole...but the Court Party? Is that supposed to be some sort of Canadian Deep State? Right-wingers just don't seem to appreciate how much they'll need to dismantle and dial back before they can begin reshaping Canada according to their values and view of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted January 1, 2018 Report Share Posted January 1, 2018 Political ideology has no place on the bench. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 1, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 1, 2018 16 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said: Political ideology has no place on the bench. And yet, justices are appointed solely due to political ideology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 1, 2018 Report Share Posted January 1, 2018 20 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said: Political ideology has no place on the bench. Apparently the bench has no place in right-wing ideology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted January 2, 2018 Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 21 hours ago, Argus said: And yet, justices are appointed solely due to political ideology. Again, just as with Senate appointments and the Governor General, remove politicians from the process. We have an institution in place for this very purpose. It is time to go back to using it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted January 2, 2018 Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 4 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said: Again, just as with Senate appointments and the Governor General, remove politicians from the process. We have an institution in place for this very purpose. It is time to go back to using it. Laws are crafted by politicians, are you suggesting they be removed from that as well? b.t.w. I agree that we need to improve the process, but I don't think it is as simple as pointing the finger at politicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted January 2, 2018 Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 1 minute ago, ?Impact said: Laws are crafted by politicians, are you suggesting they be removed from that as well? b.t.w. I agree that we need to improve the process, but I don't think it is as simple as pointing the finger at politicians. No. I am only suggesting members of the SCOC be appointed by the Crown as laid down in the Constitution. Remove the PM from the process. In fact remove the position of PM all together. If I can't be Prime Minister, nobody should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted January 2, 2018 Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 12 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said: No. I am only suggesting members of the SCOC be appointed by the Crown as laid down in the Constitution. Remove the PM from the process. In fact remove the position of PM all together. If I can't be Prime Minister, nobody should be. I agree, the role of the PM needs to be severely curtailed. He (and in one very brief instance - she) did not start this way, but over the years that role has acquired more and more of the power. We no longer have a House of Commons, we have a House of Prime Minister and a few dissenters. The "crown" however is not a good substitute, as it is represented by a single individual without the required background. I believe the process put in place by current Liberal government to appoint Senators is more along the lines of what is needed for the SCOC, although there might need to be more professional involvement at least as part of the vetting process for candidates. I had been suggesting something similar to the current advisory board for many years, although the appointment process for it I was looking for more involvement from the opposition parties (both federal and provincial). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 2, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 2 hours ago, ?Impact said: I believe the process put in place by current Liberal government to appoint Senators is more along the lines of what is needed for the SCOC, The process in places for the senate ensures that the people appointed to the senate are liberals, as opposed to Liberals. Not a hell of a lot of difference there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted January 2, 2018 Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Argus said: The process in places for the senate ensures that the people appointed to the senate are liberals, as opposed to Liberals. Not a hell of a lot of difference there. Did you read my last sentence? I believe the current process is far superior to the old one, but it doesn't go all the way. b.t.w., there is non-liberal involvement in the current process through the provinces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 2, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 2 hours ago, ?Impact said: Did you read my last sentence? I believe the current process is far superior to the old one, but it doesn't go all the way. b.t.w., there is non-liberal involvement in the current process through the provinces. Both processes appoint people similar in ideology to the government of the day. There really is no difference there. You're not going to see conservatives appointed to the senate under this process unless the government changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted January 2, 2018 Report Share Posted January 2, 2018 2 hours ago, Argus said: Both processes appoint people similar in ideology to the government of the day. There really is no difference there. You're not going to see conservatives appointed to the senate under this process unless the government changes. There is a world of difference, as I have already pointed out. First off it is removed from the party machine, if only by arms length, and second it has involvement of the respective province that could easily be from another party. It is not as far as I want to see it go, but it is a long, long ways from recent years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted January 3, 2018 Report Share Posted January 3, 2018 Impact wrote, "The "crown" however is not a good substitute, as it is represented by a single individual without the required background." Appointing Justices is in her job description (The Constitution). She's been doing this stuff for over 60 years. If that isn't the required background, what is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted January 3, 2018 Report Share Posted January 3, 2018 On 12/30/2017 at 12:46 PM, Argus said: There was so much hyperbole surrounding Harper and the judicial system. ... Argus, there was alot of media hyperbole around Harper. -remember wafergate -how about shaking his kid's hand -far North, I make the rules ===== Yet, there is no media hyperbole around Trudeau Jnr - except a trip to an island, a question provoked by the opposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 3, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2018 21 hours ago, ?Impact said: There is a world of difference, as I have already pointed out. First off it is removed from the party machine, if only by arms length, and second it has involvement of the respective province that could easily be from another party. It is not as far as I want to see it go, but it is a long, long ways from recent years. Get real. You have a five member 'advisory board' appointed by the PM. It will select five people to present to the PM from which he can choose a senator. Which means the Liberals can basically appoint anyone they damn well want to the senate, just like always. And it will always be someone with reliable credentials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted January 3, 2018 Report Share Posted January 3, 2018 2 hours ago, Argus said: Get real. You have a five member 'advisory board' appointed by the PM. It will select five people to present to the PM from which he can choose a senator. Which means the Liberals can basically appoint anyone they damn well want to the senate, just like always. And it will always be someone with reliable credentials. Wrong. The advisory board has 3 federal members and 2 provincial members. Like I said, I would prefer a much better system, but this one is a billion times better than what we have suffered through for the past few decades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.