SCC Justice John Major to retire soon

[BHS]

mcqueen625 makes a good point. The mainstream churches that have modernized their teachings to keep up with current trends in polically correct thinking are losing members. The churches that have maintained their traditional views are bursting at the seams. My wife's family belongs to a traditional church. In the past five years they've doubled their seating and their still isn't enough room, even with two Sunday services.

I am personally in favour of SSM, and I'm not a particularly religious person (though I have made a personal study of a variety of religions). I know enough about religion to tell you that people seek religious guidance as a means of centering or anchoring themselves in the world. A church with long tradition and a robust set of values (even if some values that seem outdated) is a more attractive anchor for such people than one that is being blown by the winds of fashionable political conscience.

[Guest eureka]

We do need real reform in this country. We need, most of all, reform of the education system to teach the "art" of thinking. Then, we might not be buried under the silly crap about the SCC making or passing laws.

The SCC interprets the Constitutionality of laws WRT to challenges to laws, It passes judgement on the decisions of lower court judges for the rest. It does not make law: it does not pass law.

As for the Charter, it does nothing that was not there prior to the Charter. As it specifically states, it does not derogate from any existing right. That is, it does what Charters do in affirming existing rights.

If anything, the Charter has worked to derogate from existing rights in the upholding of Quebec's language laws. They are an abridgement of rights.

[BHS]

"Judge made law" is not a reference to passing laws per se, but the setting of legal precedents that go beyond the scope of the Charter as it is written.

The Supreme Court has determined and re-affirmed it's determination that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional, despite the fact that the framers of the Constitution voted down any reference to sexual orientation seven times.

Much like the American Constitution, the Charter has no clause specifically protecting a right to privacy. As has happened in the US, this "right" has been "read into" the Charter so that the Supreme Court can take a liberal standpoint on such issues as SSM and abortion.

Quebec's language laws were deemed unconstituional by the Supreme Court, and they remain unconstitutional. Robert Bourassa used the Notwithstanding Clause to overrule the Charter and re-instate what the Supreme Court had struck down.

None of this is technically "illegal". The Charter was written with enough sloppy, open-ended language to allow the Supremes to make an arbitrary decision on just about any issue that comes before the court.

[Mad_Michael]

Major to retire from Supreme Court

Supreme Court Justice John Major to retire at Christmas

Mr Dithers talked a lot about the democratic deficit before he was elected. So far he has produced zilch. Will he put his words into action here? I seriously have my doubts.

Major I believe is from the West.

When was there last a supreme court justice from BC?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who cares which freakin' town any given Justice comes from and how that is relevant is beyond me.

As for this "democratic deficit", that is a topic I'm deeply interested in. Can anyone tell me how the issue is related in any way, shape or form to the issue of the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice?

[Mad_Michael]

Well, there is actually pressure to replace the retiring Judge Major with an aborigine.

Native needed on SC

From a legal perspective, I can't imagine any possible reason that a Native might be needed on the Supreme Court.

In other words, this 'imperative' is purely political window-dressing. Typical crap. What about Hungarian homosexual immigrants with bad eyesight? Does the Court need one of those too?

Victim politics is really bad policy.

[Mad_Michael]

We do need real reform in this country. We need, most of all, reform of the education system to teach the "art" of thinking. Then, we might not be buried under the silly crap about the SCC making or passing laws.

One thing is certain - teaching people to think is not in the best interests of our governments or in the corporations who run them.

The SCC interprets the Constitutionality of laws WRT to challenges to laws, It passes judgement on the decisions of lower court judges for the rest. It does not make law: it does not pass law.  

Good points, though the recent 'test questions' Martin submitted does push the envelope a bit...

As for the Charter, it does nothing that was not there prior to the Charter. As it specifically states, it does not derogate from any existing right. That is, it does what Charters do in affirming existing rights.

Canada is the originator of the 'new' legal principle of 'reading in', so, what you say here is not quite true.

If anything, the Charter has worked to derogate from existing rights in the upholding of Quebec's language laws. They are an abridgement of rights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not really. The language regime in Quebec stands only with Section 38 (Notwithstanding Clause) which is temporary (and renewable). In this respect, language rights haven't really changed in Quebec pre or post 1982.

[Guest eureka]

The "setting" of legal precedents does not go beyond the Charter as written Legal precedent is interpretation of the Law as written. No precedent can go against the Constitutional provisions or the Charter. Judges cannot make law.

The lack of reference to sexual orientation by the Framers of the Constitution has no bearing on decisions about this. That comes under all sorts of other headings and arises from the simple fact of equal humanity.

The Right to privacy does not need to be in the Charter or any other statute. It is a "Natural Right."

Quebec's language Laws were not held to be unconstitutional Only the section relating to the language of signs was. All appeals to the SCC on other grounds: education; language of documents (and traffic tickets) have been upheld by the Court even though the United Nations Commission on Human Rights have held the whole body of language laws to be a violation of the UN Declaration.

Interestingly, wrt the traffic tickets: Georges Forest in Maitoba won his action before the Supreme Court and all his costs were paid by the federal government. Duncan Macdonald (a friend and colleague of mine long ago) lost the same action wrt Quebec,, all - at every level paid by himself, and was bankrupted.

[Mad_Michael]

The lack of reference to sexual orientation by the Framers of the Constitution has no bearing on decisions about this. That comes under all sorts of other headings and arises from the simple fact of equal humanity.

Oh my gosh! You mean the Americans who wrote the US Constitution (ie. the "Framers") wrote the Canadian constitution? Would that be 1867 or 1982?

[Mad_Michael]

The Right to privacy does not need to be in the Charter or any other statute. It is a "Natural Right."

Good gosh, you must be kidding. If it isn't in the Charter or any other relevant constitutional document, as a right, it doesn't exist until otherwise stated.

[BHS]

What a wonderful set of circumstances! Privacy is a "natural right" to be used by the court to uphold trendy progressive legislation on one hand, but to be limited in other cases at the Supreme Court's discretion "such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society". Brilliant! And bulletproof! Using the privacy carrot and stick the justices can rule any way they want on nearly any case that comes before them.

[Guest eureka]

Mad Michael!

You said in another thread you can be arrogant. You also implied that you leave your arrogance to those that attack you.

Kindly take your arrogance and attend tp what I wrote - if it is within your capacity to comprehend.

[Guest eureka]

BHS!

Get your law books out and look at the concept of natural rights. You will find it there. Limitations on natural rights are a question of public policy and safety.

Where is "privacy" used to uphold trendy progressive ;egislation"? And how is progressive legislation to be considered trendy?

[Guest eureka]

MM. A Charter is, by definition, an affirmation of existing rights or a grant of new rights. There is nothing in the Charter that was not there in Common Law or the Civil Code previously. In the Charter, it is pointedly referenced that the Charter does not derogate from existing rights.

That provision is there to guard against a possible interpretation that an existing right is omitted anf therefore read as extinguished.

There is nothing in Charter decisions that could not have been made had there been no Charter. There can be argument that the Charter has been used to limit rights - one is the example I have given. The opponents of the Charter at he beginning, condemned it for the reason of that possibility. I was one of them.

[Argus]

I think in your opinion anyone who opposes SSM is unqualified for citizenship.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll do you one better. Anyone who opposes SSM is unqualified for personhood.

Intolerance comparable to the best the Nazis came up with.

For your part, you don't seem to believe that an understanding of this nations laws is a prerequisite for a seat on the SCC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The law is whatever the SC says it is. Kill all the current members, appoint 12 strict conservatives and suddenly the law changes.

[Argus]

Can't we move on from SSM. now? The dirty deal is done, the debate is over. Once again Canada shows Americans what real Christianity is all about. Most of the mainstream churches will support SSM within a short perrios of time. Lutherans are addressing the issue, the United Church, the Unitarian Church and the Anglican churches have already dealt with the issue, and quite frankly who cares what RCs think any more. They have become the laughing stock of the nation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Boy. This is like saying, Al's Shoe Store, Gord's ten cent shop, and Big Bud's Discount have already decided, so who cares what Wal-Mart says - those laughingstock guys.

But I suppose if you dismiss even the "personhood" of anyone who disagrees with your social views then dismissing 13 million Roman Catholics is no problem at all.

Interesting you ignore the Jews, Hindus and Muslims. Not mainstream enough for you? But then again, being against SSM they aren't people, right?

Ah, the politics of hate. The Left remains masters of it.

[Argus]

Mad Michael!

You said in another thread you can be arrogant. You also implied that you leave your arrogance to those that attack you.

Kindly take your arrogance and attend tp what I wrote - if it is within your capacity to comprehend.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't be so hard on him. It can often be quite difficult trying to figure out what you're saying. Perhaps you should investigat one of them thar "thinking" courses.

[Guest eureka]

I know and apologize, Argus. It has been so long that I had dealings with children of grade school age that I do tend to go a little over the heads of some.