Canadian Judges increasing make governmental decisions

[I am Groot]

5 hours ago, herbie said:

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?

I'm pretty sure you're well aware that our judges are not appointed nor promoted because of their great legal acumen. There are probably thousands of lawyers in Canada with more than any judge on the supreme court.

Edited November 25, 2023 by I am Groot

[I am Groot]

4 hours ago, suds said:

Well that's just it. You can disagree/complain about the Supreme Court all you want, that is... until you need them.

Who says they'll stand up for you if you need them? Take the case of Trinity Western University. At one point, the Supreme Court DID stand up for them. When the British Columbia College of Teachers tried to refuse to recognize the graduates from their teaching college because the college didn't recognize gay marriage the court said that religious freedom overrode their delicate sensibilities. But that was over twenty years ago and the court has moved a lot further to the Left since then. So when the same University protested at the Ontario law society refusing to recognize graduates for the very same reason the Supreme Court said "Drop dead, you Christian bigots" and sided with the Ontario Law Society. No one questioned the legal training of their students, of course. They just didn't like that they were Christians.

But hey, fundamentalist Muslims are fine! We're pretty sure they love gay people! Although, of course, we don't ask. That would be rude! And probably racist!

 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by I am Groot

[I am Groot]

Came across this earlier and it's an example of how this is creeping into western democracies in other places too. Apparently the word juristocracy is becoming well known in legal circles.

Over the past few decades, an unprecedented amount of power has been transferred from representative institutions to judiciaries, transforming national and supranational courts into full-blooded political and decision-making bodies — and giving rise to a new type of political regime altogether: what some have called juristocracy. As legal scholar Ran Hirschl wrote as far back as 2004, from matters of national security to macroeconomics, “courts have become crucial for dealing with the most fundamental questions a democratic polity can contemplate”. The view that “nothing falls beyond the purview of judicial review”, as Aharon Barak, the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel, said, has become widely accepted.

As a result, it has become standard practice for core political decisions relating to the very essence of public life — such as immigration policy — to be taken by courts and judges. Questions that ought to be resolved through public deliberation in the political sphere are increasingly being settled behind closed doors by a self-selecting judiciary elite. Power has been delegated away from elected bodies and towards technocratic institutions — not just courts but also quasi-autonomous administrative bodies within the state, as well as supranational political-economic institutions such as the European Union. This process of judicialisation has disrupted the equilibrium between the various branches of government, and the fundamental principle of the separation of powers, transforming judiciaries into de facto legislators, at the expense of democratic deliberation.

https://unherd.com/2023/11/britain-is-ruled-by-a-judicial-elite/

[August1991]

13 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.

Hmmm.

I disagree.

I prefer a federal republic.

[suds]

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

 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.

The difference is that I see it as both a moral issue and a rights issue while you  do not.  The courts (being the way they are) see it mainly as a rights issue. So it is what it is.

[blackbird]

9 hours ago, suds said:

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.

Probably because you are a liberal or left and most of their rulings lean in that direction.

[myata]

Because this is no democracy, with real balance and separation of independent powers? Only an appearance, a thin curtain behind which cogs and bars all rub each other.

[OftenWrong]

22 hours ago, I am Groot said:

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

Yes we have a perfect example here.

Judge denies Kingston's application to clear encampment

The 'encampment' is a dangerous place. It's unsafe. They have tent fires and other emergencies there constantly, tying up emergency response resources.

To say that eviction impinges on their human rights is blatantly ignorant of the fact, that living in it is unsafe.

[Queenmandy85]

14 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

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...

Are you saying that Canadian laws must be approved by the King of New Zealand?

Our King's role as the King of Canada is totally separate from his role as the King of Australia or the King od England. As far as Canada is concerned, he is our King. He is a Canadian citizen. He is the personifacation of Canada. 

Sorry for the thread drift.

[Queenmandy85]

Replacing the BNA Act with the Canada Act was totally unnecessary and detrimental the constitutional process. It was the Canada Act that moved the power from Parliament to the courts. It is a cash cow for the legal profession.

That being said, the decisions of the Supreme Court generally are based on law and tend to reflect the sentiments of the people. Abortion is an issue that reflects the fact that a large majority of people support a woman's rights. The Court is bound by the Charter. The Charter is intended to protect a person's rights. As a Conservative, I believe rights need to be balanced with responsibilities and duty.

 

[herbie]

FFS hlaf the opinion is that the Judges are NOT appointed by their legal acumen but by political affiliation and that can be fixed by further entrenching it with Conservative judges they can agree with.
And one that thinks the final decisions should be made by some foreigner's birthright....

What the hell is wrong with you people?

 

[ExFlyer]

On 11/24/2023 at 10:07 AM, I am Groot said:

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

How can a judge not be political as it is politicians that passed the charter of rights and all laws in Canada and they just rule on them..

The charter and laws are all politics. You don't need to be elected to know that or to rule on that. So, judges do not "make government decisions" they just ensure the laws before them meet what the politicians have written. When fault is found in the written llw, they strike it down and politicians have to re-write them or.....leave them as they are and not enforcable.

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

.The charter and laws are all politics. You don't need to be elected to know that or to rule on that. So, judges do not "make government decisions" they just ensure the laws before them meet what the politicians have written. 

Often enough, they just substitute their own judgment for that of the politicians, not based on law but on ideology. The Bissonnette decision is a prime example of that.

[suds]

19 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Who says they'll stand up for you if you need them? Take the case of Trinity Western University. At one point, the Supreme Court DID stand up for them. When the British Columbia College of Teachers tried to refuse to recognize the graduates from their teaching college because the college didn't recognize gay marriage the court said that religious freedom overrode their delicate sensibilities. But that was over twenty years ago and the court has moved a lot further to the Left since then. So when the same University protested at the Ontario law society refusing to recognize graduates for the very same reason the Supreme Court said "Drop dead, you Christian bigots" and sided with the Ontario Law Society. No one questioned the legal training of their students, of course. They just didn't like that they were Christians.

But hey, fundamentalist Muslims are fine! We're pretty sure they love gay people! Although, of course, we don't ask. That would be rude! And probably racist!

 

 

 

Many things can change over the course of 20 years. In this particular case, same sex marriages became legal in Canada in 2005. Trinity Western has changed by making the community covenant no longer mandatory in 2018. Time changes things, people change, and maybe even Judges. I did take a look at the court briefs for the 2 cases mentioned. I admit they are similar, but not exactly the same, which may have made a difference also.

Edited November 25, 2023 by suds

[ExFlyer]

10 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Often enough, they just substitute their own judgment for that of the politicians, not based on law but on ideology. The Bissonnette decision is a prime example of that.

As much as you like to think that, when a judge makes a judgment, they have to have the evidence,  documents and precedence to make that judgment.

A court is not like repolitics where rectal plucks rule LOL

[suds]

15 hours ago, blackbird said:

Probably because you are a liberal or left and most of their rulings lean in that direction.

I can tell you this.... I'm no social conservative. Any moral judgements of mine on abortion (the killing of human life) has nothing to do with religion. I'm fine with euthanasia as long as the one being euthanized gets the final say. I've voted for Harper, and Harris. I've even voted for Trudeau once or twice (but not the one presently in office). Even voted for the NDP (but that was even further back when I was young and stupid). I hope this helps.

[suds]

9 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Replacing the BNA Act with the Canada Act was totally unnecessary and detrimental the constitutional process. It was the Canada Act that moved the power from Parliament to the courts. It is a cash cow for the legal profession.

That being said, the decisions of the Supreme Court generally are based on law and tend to reflect the sentiments of the people. Abortion is an issue that reflects the fact that a large majority of people support a woman's rights. The Court is bound by the Charter. The Charter is intended to protect a person's rights. As a Conservative, I believe rights need to be balanced with responsibilities and duty.

 

Yes, the Court is bound by the Charter, but the Charter is only so many words. It's the Supreme Court Justices that interpret those words. Not an easy job I would think especially when rights conflict. Good post!

Edited November 25, 2023 by suds

[blackbird]

11 minutes ago, suds said:

I can tell you this.... I'm no social conservative. Any moral judgements of mine on abortion (the killing of human life) has nothing to do with religion. I'm fine with euthanasia as long as the one being euthanized gets the final say. I've voted for Harper, and Harris. I've even voted for Trudeau once or twice (but not the one presently in office). Even voted for the NDP (but that was even further back when I was young and stupid). I hope this helps.

Anything you call "moral" judgments has to be based on the Bible, that is, Biblical Christianity.  Presently your beliefs are in complete opposition to God and the Bible.  Not a good place to be in.

You reject what you call "social conservatism" by saying your belief has nothing to do with "religion".  Religion is a kind of ambiguous or broad term and can mean anything.  It could mean Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, Mother Earth environmentalism, or any one of thousands of religions in the world.  Liberal ideology is a kind of religion to many people because that is their god.

If you are worshiping liberalism or humanism which is an ideology based on human reason, you are worshiping a false god.  Sadly many people worship the false god of liberalism and their guru is presently Trudeau.  You might say it is the Church of Trudeau or the Church of Liberalism. 

However, it means you are in opposition to the true God and Creator of the universe.  You must study the Bible, specifically the New Testament and get right with God or suffer the consequences which are not good.  You are presently fighting against the true God.  Nobody wins that one.  It is a losing proposition.  

 

 

Edited November 25, 2023 by blackbird

[ExFlyer]

57 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Anything you call "moral" judgments has to be based on the Bible, that is, Biblical Christianity.  Presently your beliefs are in complete opposition to God and the Bible.  Not a good place to be in.

Y....

There you go again.

Any moral judgment is up to that persons own perspective.

It has diddly shit to do with the friggen bible or any other book for that matter.

[suds]

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

Anything you call "moral" judgments has to be based on the Bible, that is, Biblical Christianity.  Presently your beliefs are in complete opposition to God and the Bible.  Not a good place to be in.

You reject what you call "social conservatism" by saying your belief has nothing to do with "religion".  Religion is a kind of ambiguous or broad term and can mean anything.  It could mean Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, Mother Earth environmentalism, or any one of thousands of religions in the world.  Liberal ideology is a kind of religion to many people because that is their god.

If you are worshiping liberalism or humanism which is an ideology based on human reason, you are worshiping a false god.  Sadly many people worship the false god of liberalism and their guru is presently Trudeau.  You might say it is the Church of Trudeau or the Church of Liberalism. 

However, it means you are in opposition to the true God and Creator of the universe.  You must study the Bible, specifically the New Testament and get right with God or suffer the consequences which are not good.  You are presently fighting against the true God.  Nobody wins that one.  It is a losing proposition.  

 

 

My mother had this small crucifix that I never ever saw her wear. I found it in her jewelry box shortly before she died. I bought a small chain and put it around my neck and swore I'd never take it off. Well that lasted about 2 or 3 weeks. I still have it and can't part with it for some reason. Maybe we might all have at least one small religious bone somewhere in our body.  I consider myself an agnostic. So... do I get any brownie points for that or what? Oh, and I don't reject social conservatism... it's just not my cup of tea.

Edited November 26, 2023 by suds

[herbie]

The whole point of parenting and Sunday School was to teach you to know right from wrong without needing to RTFM.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, suds said:

Oh, and I don't reject social conservatism... it's just not my cup of tea.

Yes, sometimes little things like that can become valuable keepsakes, especially when it is tied to someone as close as our mother.  Good for you to keep that in a safe place as a valuable keepsake.  I would not conclude it has anything to do with your religious beliefs.

Agnosticism is a dead end mentally and spiritually.   I am not particularly advocating for social conservatism because that is more of a political thing than a Biblical spiritual thing.  However, it appears believing in the Bible and in Jesus Christ would make one a social conservative.  But that is not the reason why one should believe the Bible and be born again.  Biblical truth is not governed by politics. 

You should not assume agnosticism is a legitimate belief.  It is actually contrary to the Bible or truth.  It is a denial of the reality that an infinitely powerful Creator did in fact create the universe and did create mankind.

The Bible is a complete revelation of God's dealing with man and an account of God sending his Son, Jesus Christ, to earth to die as an atonement for man's sin.  It makes it clear why we need to understand that and what we have to do in response.  The Bible teaches we are all born in rebellion against God or have corrupt evil hearts.  We need to be redeemed and reconciled to God before we die.  That is, today is the accepted time of salvation.  Do not put it off to tomorrow or some future date.  We do not know if this day will be our last day.

"10  By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11  And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12  But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;" Hebrews 10:10 KJV

"  6  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. "  Hebrews 11:6 KJV

This verse condemns Agnosticism and is clear instruction we are to have faith.  That is the only way we can please God.

"23  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24  Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25  Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26  To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. "  Romans 3:23-26 KJV

Hopefully these verses explain why one must have faith.  "17  So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. "  Romans 10:17 KJV   So this is why is so essential to read and study the Bible.  I Bible points us to Jesus Christ who is the Son of God, died for our sins, and was raised from the dead.  See   1 Cor. 15:1-5 KJV

 

 

 

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by blackbird

[Queenmandy85]

One way to improve the selection of Judges and Senators is to revove the politicians from the equation. The Constitution provides for a clear simple solution to making appointments. If we followed that process and side lined the politicians, there would be no cause for complaint. Canadian judges are supposed to be above politics, and for the most part that has been the case.

As for the Bissonnette case, I can't see what the problem is. He was convicted and is serving a life sentence without possiblity of parole for 25 years, as mandated by Parliament. The purpose of incarceration is to separate the individual from the opportunity to re-offend until such time as they are rehabilitated. It is not designed to be a tool for punishment. Punishment resides exclusively in the hands of God. That is the case for Bissonnette, Bernardo and for all of us. "Let (s)he who is without sin cast the first stone."

[ExFlyer]

17 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

One way to improve the selection of Judges and Senators is to revove the politicians from the equation. The Constitution provides for a clear simple solution to making appointments. If we followed that process and side lined the politicians, there would be no cause for complaint. Canadian judges are supposed to be above politics, and for the most part that has been the case.

As for the Bissonnette case, I can't see what the problem is. He was convicted and is serving a life sentence without possiblity of parole for 25 years, as mandated by Parliament. The purpose of incarceration is to separate the individual from the opportunity to re-offend until such time as they are rehabilitated. It is not designed to be a tool for punishment. Punishment resides exclusively in the hands of God. That is the case for Bissonnette, Bernardo and for all of us. "Let (s)he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Considering it is politicians that make the laws including the constitution and charter, you cannot remover them from the equation.

As for picking a judge : https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/09/14/how-canada-supreme-court-justices

 

The Bisonette decision was based on the charter and can be appealed if there is enough cause. The decision is not singular, no one judge makes the judgment. There are 9 judges and majority decides.

[Queenmandy85]

I guess my point is there is a process outlined in the Constitution for appointments to the Court, the Governor General and the Senate. I believe if we followed the Constitution and removed the Ministry from the process, it would remove any hint of politisizing these institutions.