Canadian Judges increasing make governmental decisions

[I am Groot]

Canadian judges are becoming too activist and doing things that ought to be in the area of government control. Who says this? Some radical right-winger? Well, no, a member of the Supreme Court of Canada. And the problem with that is none of them are elected. Most of them never could be elected.  The people have no say in what they decide from their lofty perches, and no way to hold them responsible for the consequences.

Judges in Canada have been “hard-wired” by four decades of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to wield “enormous authority,” and they are making decisions that are “increasingly governmental in nature,” according to a sitting Supreme Court judge.

Judges increasingly make governmental decisions: Supreme Court justice | National Post

[blackbird]

Yes, I have known this for years.  Many people regard them as kind of gods and think they know more than anyone else about everything.  In fact they are hand-picked by the sitting government which means they are mainly liberal judges, much like the Senate which is also appointed by the sitting government or through a process created by the PM.  The end result is liberal decisions by the SCC and the Senate.  There should be some kind of safeguard to limit the powers of the Supreme Court but there appears to be none.  They are more powerful than our elected Parliament.  How can anyone believe we live in a absolute democracy when the Supreme Court judges and the Senate are unelected.  Democracy is a very questionable term and how much of our government is democratic is really debatable.

Edited November 24, 2023 by blackbird

[QuebecOverCanada]

The fact that unelected officials can overrule laws made by elected officials means that elected officials have no real power whatsoever.

And all our laws have to be approved as well by the British Monarchy.

We're a constitutional confederation, not a democracy.

[blackbird]

One of the worst things to have repeatedly come out of the Supreme Court and other courts in Canada is soft-on-crime rulings.  A life sentence is no longer a life sentence.  The SCC likes shocking rulings using the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" for serial murderers. 

quote

One could be forgiven for believing the courts are soft on violent crime. It isn’t always so, but it frequently seems like it.

On Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously ruled that consecutive sentences for this country’s most violent killers was tantamount to “cruel and unusual” punishment and unconstitutional.  The 2011 Criminal Code provision brought in by then Prime Minister Stephen Harper allowed judges to impose parole ineligibility periods of 25 years to be served consecutively for each murder, rather than concurrently. Previously, anything after the first homicide was a freebie — unless the killer was tagged with a dangerous offender label.

No more.

 

 

Murder victim Laura Babcock is shown in a Toronto Police Service handout photo.

For Linda Babcock, whose 23-year-old daughter, Laura, was the victim of one of three murders, committed by rich kid killer Dellen Millard and his goofy sidekick Mark Smich it is another kick in the face.

“This means that every life does not matter,” Babcock told the Canadian Press through her tears.

 

..

 

 

“Our life has been destroyed by their crime. And yet the courts feel that it is cruel to have them in prison for life. Why do the victims have less rights than the criminals?”    unquote

HUNTER: Court clueless on 'cruel and unusual' in multiple murder ruling | Toronto Sun

 

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by blackbird

[Queenmandy85]

2 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

The fact that unelected officials can overrule laws made by elected officials means that elected officials have no real power whatsoever.

And all our laws have to be approved as well by the British Monarchy.

We're a constitutional confederation, not a democracy.

You are in error. Britain has no say in Canadian laws. It is the King of Canada that must approve our laws. 

[QuebecOverCanada]

17 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

You are in error. Britain has no say in Canadian laws. It is the King of Canada that must approve our laws. 

It's obviously not an error.

It is the British Monarchy, which leads 14 realms of the Commonwealth, that has the last say about our laws.

[blackbird]

22 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

You are in error. Britain has no say in Canadian laws. It is the King of Canada that must approve our laws. 

Actually, the Governor General has to approve the laws passed by Parliament and the Senate, not the King.  The King has nothing to do with it.  We have an Inuit old woman (an obvious liberal woke person) who has the power to approve or not approve of the laws believe it or not.  She was appointed by Trudeau based on liberal DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) ideology.  Nothing wrong with old women, but this appointment was for the liberal agenda of reconciliation and wokeness.

Edited November 24, 2023 by blackbird

[QuebecOverCanada]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

Actually, the Governor General has to approve the laws passed by Parliament and the Senate, not the King.  The King has nothing to do with it.  We have an Inuit old woman who has the power to approve or not approve of the laws believe it or not.  She was appointed by Trudeau based on liberal DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) ideology.

Who does the GG represent..? ?

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Who does the GG represent..? ?

Good question.  Don't think she even speaks French, but everyone else in the higher ranks of the civil service must speak French when serving all of Canada.

[QuebecOverCanada]

59 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Good question. 

She represents who, once again? ?

[Queenmandy85]

I Know...I know...✋ ?

She represents King Charles III, the King of Canada, a Canadian. We are no more ruled by the King of the UK than we are ruled by the King of New Zealand or the King of Australia. 

You should be familiar with the Statute of Westminster. That is why we celebrate Canada's independence day on Dec. 11th. (Well I do anyway.)

Edited November 24, 2023 by Queenmandy85

[WestCanMan]

We make our own statutes, but in theory when a case comes up that isn't specifically covered by a statute, and there are no similar cases here from which to draw a precedent, our judges could be influenced set by precedents in other commonwealth countries. 

I dunno if that's really a thing, in practice. 

[suds]

6 hours ago, blackbird said:

There should be some kind of safeguard to limit the powers of the Supreme Court but there appears to be none.  They are more powerful than our elected Parliament.  How can anyone believe we live in a absolute democracy when the Supreme Court judges and the Senate are unelected.  Democracy is a very questionable term and how much of our government is democratic is really debatable.

I could agree with you on our un-elected Senate, but how many in our elected Parliament are lawyers or know anything about constitutional law for example? Are you suggesting that our Supreme Court Justices be elected, or that Parliament should have the ability to override them? I don't really care for either choice as it would just create more problems. We do have a notwithstanding clause. Someone or some judicial 'body' has to have the final say, and in general I believe our 9 Justices on the Supreme Court have served us well.

Edited November 24, 2023 by suds

[herbie]

2 minutes ago, suds said:

how many in our elected Parliament are lawyers or know anything about constitutional law

Apparently about as many on the right side of the speaker as the few on this forum.

If most of us want to boil people in oil cuz they're left handed, so be it!  Why should some activist Judge stop us? What do Judges know about the law anyways? An activists are people who DO something! Why listen to them? Listen to those who sit on their fat arses whining like 18th Century Luddites with Internet access!

[Legato]

The Supreme Court Justices must imbibe gallons of caffeine, now they're well awoke

[suds]

5 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

The fact that unelected officials can overrule laws made by elected officials means that elected officials have no real power whatsoever.

I'm sure this isn't what you're referring to but Section 52 of the Charter does give our Courts the power to overrule any part of any law that they believe violates Charter rights. So they are empowered in certain cases to overrule laws made by elected officials.

[Michael Hardner]

I read the OP link. There's something to think about for sure, however, it also says in that article, poorly written article, that Rowe himself voted to strike down the carbon tax as unconstitutional?

 

So what's good for the populist goose should be good for the elitist gander.

 

And I'm not sure why so many populists think the court wouldn't help them, as a leftist populist government could easily pass anti-religion laws wrre it not for constitutional supports and the supreme Court.

[suds]

33 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

And I'm not sure why so many populists think the court wouldn't help them, as a leftist populist government could easily pass anti-religion laws wrre it not for constitutional supports and the supreme Court.

Well that's just it. You can disagree/complain about the Supreme Court all you want, that is... until you need them. It's easy to judge others when not having to deal with all those nasty little unintended consequences that might spring up due to a poorly constructed decision.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

as a leftist populist government could easily pass anti-religion laws wrre it not for constitutional supports and the supreme Court.

You are ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court already supports anti-Christian laws such as abortion, same-sex marriage, medical assistance in dying, etc.  We know how they rule on almost any questionable issue.  

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You are ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court already supports anti-Christian laws such as abortion, same-sex marriage, medical assistance in dying, etc.  We know how they rule on almost any questionable issue.  

Just because they don't support all your religious pet projects, doesn't mean they wouldn't defend you if something really extreme came up.   

It's called nuance...

[QuebecOverCanada]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I Know...I know...✋ ?

She represents King Charles III, the King of Canada, a Canadian. We are no more ruled by the King of the UK than we are ruled by the King of New Zealand or the King of Australia. 

You should be familiar with the Statute of Westminster. That is why we celebrate Canada's independence day on Dec. 11th. (Well I do anyway.)

I'll put it in a different way.

Is King Charles III, the King of England? Is he a British Monarch?

If it were yes to both those rhetorical questions, what would it mean?

Let that sink in...

Edited November 24, 2023 by QuebecOverCanada

[suds]

17 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You are ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court already supports anti-Christian laws such as abortion, same-sex marriage, medical assistance in dying, etc.  We know how they rule on almost any questionable issue.  

It's simple really. I see it as having more rights and since we supposedly live in a free country I don't consider it to be a bad thing. However, while not supporting abortion as a personal choice I would not force my beliefs on others.

[suds]

I believe we're getting a little carried away with the Supreme Court. The opening post isn't really about the Supreme Court.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, suds said:

However, while not supporting abortion as a personal choice I would not force my beliefs on others.

 By remaining silent and non-committal, you are by default supporting abortion.  That's a cop-out.  It's the easy way out to avoid being in opposition to anyone.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Just because they don't support all your religious pet projects, doesn't mean they wouldn't defend you if something really extreme came up.   

It's called nuance...

You know your pet project is to oppose Biblical Christianity by dismissing it as "religious pet projects".  You like to straddle the fence and pretend you are on both sides of the fence.  You know what happens to anyone who tries to run while straddling both sides of a fence.