Federal Conservative Leader

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

It puts the courts above parliament.

Isn't it more a matter of the courts ensuring that our Charter of rights and freedoms and Constitution stay above Parliament... where they belong?

[Argus]

18 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Other than slight changes made to judicial advisory committee's, how does it differ from the rules established in 1867?

It removed parliamentary sovereignty.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Argus

[Argus]

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

Isn't it more a matter of the courts ensuring that our Charter of rights and freedoms and Constitution stay above Parliament... where they belong?

Prior to 1982 parliamentary sovereignty was an established legal concept in Canada. That largely evaporated with the new constitution Which freed up judges to become activists and to base decisions on their own ethical and ideological beliefs instead of the written law, and enabled them to compel elected representatives in changing laws.

[eyeball]

36 minutes ago, Argus said:

Prior to 1982 parliamentary sovereignty was an established legal concept in Canada. That largely evaporated with the new constitution Which freed up judges to become activists and to base decisions on their own ethical and ideological beliefs instead of the written law, and enabled them to compel elected representatives in changing laws.

Parliamentary sovereignty hasn't gone anywhere. Parliamentarians still make the laws but they just have to do so according to our Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Parliament can change the Constitution but the Supreme Court can't so what does that say about parliamentary sovereignty?

[Argus]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Parliamentary sovereignty hasn't gone anywhere. Parliamentarians still make the laws but they just have to do so according to our Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As "interpreted" by unelected judges. And judges can interpret a law any damned way they want to. That's why the Republicans in the US are so frantic to put the right kind of judge on the Supreme Court, because they're convinced they will then 'interpret' laws differently than the last bunch.

Quote

Parliament can change the Constitution but the Supreme Court can't so what does that say about parliamentary sovereignty?

It's virtually impossible to change the constitution. The amendment formula requires near unanimity.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Argus

[jacee]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Parliamentary sovereignty hasn't gone anywhere. Parliamentarians still make the laws but they just have to do so according to our Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Parliament can change the Constitution but the Supreme Court can't so what does that say about parliamentary sovereignty?

Sounds like a system of checks and balances on power in governance, placing the rights of individuals at the core, which is the required situation for democracy. 

Many conservative thinkers and Conservative voters may claim to prefer an authoritarian model where a government leader has all power. However, I think their preference only applies when Conservatives are in power. Lol

 I somehow doubt that Argus would want the Liberal government's agenda to be unconstrained by the courts' Constitutional rulings. 

So, again, the desired balance is a model that applies, and works, regardless of which political Party holds power, and also when no Party holds majority power. 

 

[WestCanMan]

Can we add Pierre Poilievre to the list? 

Also, is Wall in the running? 

He'd be my first choice if he is but I didn't see anything about it.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, jacee said:

Sounds like a system of checks and balances on power in governance, placing the rights of individuals at the core, which is the required situation for democracy. 

No, it's a system which puts the opinions of unelected people over the opinions of elected representatives.

1 hour ago, jacee said:

I somehow doubt that Argus would want the Liberal government's agenda to be unconstrained by the courts' Constitutional rulings. 

They area already unconstrained by the courts because the courts are staffed by dedicated liberals.

[SkyHigh]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

It removed parliamentary sovereignty.

Please explain, as the 1982 constitution does not change the role of the judiciary, in fact does not even mention the Supreme Court. The BNA speaks to the different branches of government, but in fact it's the Supreme Court act of 1875 thats the closest thing to enshrining the "constitutionality" of the courts power.

But please show me the 1982 amendment that redefines the role of the courts

[jacee]

38 minutes ago, Argus said:

No, it's a system which puts the opinions of unelected people over the opinions of elected representatives.

We can't be at the mercy of the changing agendas of political parties. In a democracy, the rights of people must not change on political whims.

41 minutes ago, Argus said:

They [Liberals] are already unconstrained by the courts because the courts are staffed by dedicated liberals.

Harper appointed three Conservative judges to the Supreme Court, hoping they'd follow his whims. It turned out that competent judges do agree on interpretation of Charter rights, regardless of politics. 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/stephen-harpers-accidental-legal-legacy/article27150950/

And again, the "sovereign" power that you propose for parliament is not what democracy is about. 

You'd prefer a constant right-wing dictatorship, but you live in the wrong country for that - ie, you live in a democracy. 

You might prefer elsewhere. Lol 

 

[jacee]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Can we add Pierre Poilievre to the list? 

Also, is Wall in the running? 

He'd be my first choice if he is but I didn't see anything about it.

Poilievre was convicted for illegal election donations. I believe it was a local company forcing employees to individually donate, reimbursed by the company, with a bonus added. 

I don't believe Poilievre ever showed remorse.

Big NO to him running our finances further into corruption!! 

[WestCanMan]

38 minutes ago, jacee said:

Poilievre was convicted for illegal election donations. I believe it was a local company forcing employees to individually donate, reimbursed by the company, with a bonus added. 

I don't believe Poilievre ever showed remorse.

Big NO to him running our finances further into corruption!! 

Lmao jacee. If you read over that accusation again it's laughable:

1) why would people 'have to be forced to do it' if they were getting extra money for it? Can you honestly say that they were forced? How so? Don't you just mean they were bribed?

2) How did this come back on him? Was he proven to be a part of the scam?

3) I googled it and I think it probably should have come up on P1 if it was really a thing. I got results like him being mad at elections Canada for letting SNC and the Libs off the hook for a $100K scam, there were a few places where it mentioned the NDP were busted for scams like that, that was it.

4) Trudeau just got re-elected after doing several things that were far worse than that, so why would you say that such a scam, if it ever really happened, would put him out of the running?

5) Our finances couldn't possibly be any more screwed than they are. If Polievre runs a decent budget and just outright steals $3 billion we'll still be $10-15 Billion ahead of Trudeau on a good year.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, jacee said:

We can't be at the mercy of the changing agendas of political parties. In a democracy, the rights of people must not change on political whims.

Harper appointed three Conservative judges to the Supreme Court, hoping they'd follow his whims. It turned out that competent judges do agree on interpretation of Charter rights, regardless of politics. 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/stephen-harpers-accidental-legal-legacy/article27150950/

And again, the "sovereign" power that you propose for parliament is not what democracy is about. 

You'd prefer a constant right-wing dictatorship, but you live in the wrong country for that - ie, you live in a democracy. 

You might prefer elsewhere. Lol 

 

1) Judges ruled to increase the power of the judiciary, what a shocker.

2) you obviously don't know what a dictatorship looks like

3) I thought that you didn't like Canada, and white people (if you cry racism I'll just copy and paste your racist comments again so don't bother). Why are you suddenly so supportive of what a couple of old white dudes said and did? Is this a turning point for you?

[Argus]

18 hours ago, jacee said:

We can't be at the mercy of the changing agendas of political parties. In a democracy, the rights of people must not change on political whims.

The difference between being at the mercy of political parties and the mercy of judges is we get to pick the politicians and we get to fire them. That means those politicians are generally careful not to do something which pisses us off too badly. Judges couldn't care less.

18 hours ago, jacee said:

Harper appointed three Conservative judges to the Supreme Court, hoping they'd follow his whims. It turned out that competent judges do agree on interpretation of Charter rights, regardless of politics. 

Harper was not able to find conservative judges. Canadian law schools turned into leftist indoctrination centres some decades ago and if you check their web sits you'll find all of them utterly enamored of social justice. In addition, of course, all the judges appointed over the years prior to Harper were liberals of one variety or other, making it very difficult to find anyone conservative to put on the supreme court. That was why Harper tried to appoint Nadon, because he was somewhat conservative.

18 hours ago, jacee said:

And again, the "sovereign" power that you propose for parliament is not what democracy is about. 

You'd prefer a constant right-wing dictatorship, but you live in the wrong country for that - ie, you live in a democracy. 

It's amusing you stridently defend the idea that our rights should be controlled by unelected mandarins as democracy and then accuse me of wanting a dictatorship because I'd rather have our elected representatives make decisions. Then again, no one has ever suggested logical consistency is a keyword for those on the far left.

 

 

[Queenmandy85]

Argus, Could you give me a couple of examples of judges changing the law for the worse. I'm sure you are right but it would help me follow your argument.

The last few comments of yours seem to be anti-conservative. The idea of electing judges comes from the United States. They were born out of a revolution against conservatism and promote this heretical anti-Conservative philosophy to this day. In Canada, we follow the Conservative  philosophy of judges being appointed by the Queen or her designate. When a judge is appointed, they are required to be non-political. My neighbour, a former tory, explained he had become an un-citizen when he was appointed to the bench. It is vital that the court be above politics, just as the Crown is. That is the Conservative way. (Please ignore the contradiction there.)

[Queenmandy85]

Back to the original question, with Ms. Ambrose out of the race, it comes down to O'Toole and Judas. I don't know anything about him but please God, make him good. I will never vote for a back-stabbing traitor. Even David Orchard would be better than Judas.

Belinda should have saved the dog.

Edited January 24, 2020 by Queenmandy85

[Queenmandy85]

50 minutes ago, Argus said:

Canadian law schools turned into leftist indoctrination centres some decades ago and if you check their web sits you'll find all of them utterly enamored of social justice.

Isn't justice the whole purpose of lawyers and the courts? I would be concerned if they were promoting injustice.

[SkyHigh]

On 1/23/2020 at 12:54 PM, Argus said:

It removed parliamentary sovereignty.

I find it telling that when asked to give specific examples of an outlandish claim you made, you instead chose to continue in partisan conversations where no actual proof is needed to support your erroneous assertions.

You seem to be able to provide numerous examples to support your obvious conformation bias over many issues, yet a simple question asking for a fact that should be easily demonstrable, nothing.

Granted you do seem to fit the archetype of the majority of the people on this site, more concerned about doubling down on your presuppositions (this being true on both sides of the political spectrum) than an actual earnest search for truth.

Am i wrong? Simply provide any evidence that the role of the courts was in any way altered or amended in the constitution act of 1982. Let's just say I won't be holding my breath

[Argus]

42 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

I find it telling that when asked to give specific examples of an outlandish claim you made,

I'm confused about why you find my claim 'outlandish'. I'll take it as a given you have no knowledge whatever about Canadian history or law and are too intellectually lazy to bother to find out. I'll also take it as a given you have no actual interest in discussion so much as preening about your leftist ideological biases.

42 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Am i wrong? Simply provide any evidence that the role of the courts was in any way altered or amended in the constitution act of 1982. Let's just say I won't be holding my breath

You want me to explain how parliament and the courts work? Prior to 1982 the courts could find the actions of the Canadian government unconstitutional only under very narrow circumstances, such as if they were taking some action reserved for the provinces.

Here is a decent explanation that you might, perhaps, be able to understand if you actually have any interest in it - which I doubt. We get visitors from Rabble from time to time, always with chips on their shoulders and expressing their disdain for conservative or semi conservative views here. They don't last long as it makes them uncomfortable when people contradict their rigid beliefs.

https://hillnotes.ca/2015/12/16/parliament-and-the-courts-balancing-the-roles/

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Isn't justice the whole purpose of lawyers and the courts? I would be concerned if they were promoting injustice.

I'm not aware that justice plays any actual role in our legal system. Certainly justice is not a consideration in rendering verdicts or making decisions. Lawyers play games that are usually highly technical as they vie to gain a particular interpretation of law, or better yet, to get an interpretation which shifts the law. Getting a proven murderer off scott free would draw plaudits and congratulation across the legal world for any lawyer. Likewise corporate lawyers who can write contracts for their clients which completely screw everyone else are richly rewarded. No, no, justice is completely beside the point. The point is the make money. You make money by making the law do what you and your client want, and the more you can twist it and get a verdict which runs contrary to expectations the more impressed people are with you.

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Argus, Could you give me a couple of examples of judges changing the law for the worse. I'm sure you are right but it would help me follow your argument.

That depends on your perspective, I would suppose. From my perspective the SC has made a number of decisions I consider unjust and not in the interests of Canada. Remembering them all with citations and case names at this point would be difficult, though. Certainly the decision to accept oral history from natives as actual evidence is one of them, and a rather astonishing one given our legal system has long dismissed 'hearsay' as largely inadmissible. Yet here it accepts an oral history with no written proof but merely the statement of someone that he heard it from his grandfather who heard it from his grandfather who heard it from his. The Singh decision was awful, too, though perhaps less outlandish. It stated that refugee claimants had the full rights under the Charter and full access to the law, to hearings and appeals and the courts. That decision has cost untold tens of billions of dollars so far. I would also say their decision in the case of Trinity law school made no sense, violated religious freedom, and went completely against previous decisions also made under the Charter. The decision to allow Canadian citizens to vote even if they hadn't set foot in Canada in five years or more was also a bad decision.

Quote

The last few comments of yours seem to be anti-conservative. The idea of electing judges comes from the United States. T

I don't want to elect judges. I want to restrict them to making decisions based on the written constitution, and not continually stretch the wording to encompass new and sometimes only slightly related issues or use tortuous chains of reasoning to justify decisions. I do not like activist judges, and how their decisions can sometimes put a huge burden on taxpayers without those taxpayers or their elected representatives having much say in the matter. I also do not believe in their impartiality. They might not be card-carrying Liberals and might give little care or concern for the Liberal party, but they are, in the main, very liberal, in the same way as Trudeau's 'independent' appointments to the senate.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Argus

[Queenmandy85]

Thanks, Argus. I can't argue with your points in these cases.  For me, it is an argument against a Prime Minister or the Cabinet involved in the appointment of judges. Recomendations to the Bench should be made by eminent people designated by a non-partisan body.

[WestCanMan]

On 1/23/2020 at 2:56 PM, jacee said:

We can't be at the mercy of the changing agendas of political parties. In a democracy, the rights of people must not change on political whims.

Harper appointed three Conservative judges to the Supreme Court, hoping they'd follow his whims. It turned out that competent judges do agree on interpretation of Charter rights, regardless of politics. 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/stephen-harpers-accidental-legal-legacy/article27150950/

And again, the "sovereign" power that you propose for parliament is not what democracy is about. 

You'd prefer a constant right-wing dictatorship, but you live in the wrong country for that - ie, you live in a democracy. 

You might prefer elsewhere. Lol 

 

TBH jacee, I don't know why you'd be against Harper on this anyways.

Part of what Harper was after was keeping people who deserve to be in jail, in jail.

Just think about the people responsible for killing all the missing aboriginal women. When guys like that come up for parole, etc, it puts the grieving families right back at square one. They don't just start worrying the day they come up for parole, they're stressed out for years prior.

[Nefarious Banana]

11 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

 Could you give me a couple of examples of judges changing the law for the worse. 

Would the decision in the Delgamuukw vs British Columbia by the Supreme Court of Canada . . . . Chief Justice Antonio Lamer fall into that category ?

[jacee]

On 1/23/2020 at 7:04 PM, WestCanMan said:

Lmao jacee. If you read over that accusation again it's laughable:

1) why would people 'have to be forced to do it' if they were getting extra money for it? Can you honestly say that they were forced? How so? Don't you just mean they were bribed?

2) How did this come back on him? Was he proven to be a part of the scam?

3) I googled it and I think it probably should have come up on P1 if it was really a thing. I got results like him being mad at elections Canada for letting SNC and the Libs off the hook for a $100K scam, there were a few places where it mentioned the NDP were busted for scams like that, that was it.

4) Trudeau just got re-elected after doing several things that were far worse than that, so why would you say that such a scam, if it ever really happened, would put him out of the running?

5) Our finances couldn't possibly be any more screwed than they are. If Polievre runs a decent budget and just outright steals $3 billion we'll still be $10-15 Billion ahead of Trudeau on a good year.

(I'll take a mea culpe on the election donations convictions: That was no-more MP Dean del Mastro. And "forced" is what it is when your employer pressures you to do something illegal ... to keep your job. Extorted would be more accurate, though bribed is also true. If you don't see the problem with that, you don't comprehend fundamentals of democracy: Governance isn't a 'business'.) 

Poilievre's offence (punished by Elections Canada) was making government funding announcements with Conservative Party logos on his shirt and on the ceremonial cheques. Very poor understanding and no respect for keeping partisanship out of governance. 

In any case, the good news is ...  Poilievre is OUT.  

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-potter-what-if-poilievre-really-does-value-his-family-more-than-work

If there was a common denominator to it all, it was that Poilievre is not super well-liked. He’s a notorious partisan who is widely seen as a major player in helping reduce question period to the level of schoolyard taunts and fratboy antics.

He would not have been much of a leader anyway: I just can't imagine him in an international context. He's barely tolerable on a back bench. No couth. Lol 

Edited January 25, 2020 by jacee