Canadian Judges increasing make governmental decisions

[TreeBeard]

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

IF you had a son or daughter with mental problems such as depression, would you approve of them receiving medical assistance in dying?

Yes, if they were suffering unbearably and had the mental capacity to choose on their own, then yes.  I wouldn’t have a say in it.  Even if I disagreed that they should choose that, it would be their choice.  

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

They don't need a damned thing if they're the supreme court. There is no appeal to their decision. If they say it's unconstitutional to wear flannel because reasons that's that.

They can interpret every element of the charter any damned way they want to. They can twist themselves into pretzels trying to come up with a reason why extending parole for a mass murderer is somehow 'cruel and unusual' when the definition of 'cruel and unusual' requires a decision so over the top Canadians find it shocking.

 Gross disproportionality is a high threshold. A measure must be more than “merely excessive” or disproportionate: it must “outrage our society’s sense of decency” such that Canadians would find it “abhorrent or intolerable”

Do you think any substantial number of Canadians found this law abhorrent or intolerable?" 

You are sorely ignorant of the legal process.

Like I said before, the supreme court is not like re-politic forum where just any old rectal pluck is OK.

[eyeball]

Canadian Judges increasingly make governmental decisions

Given the shitty job the government does at getting around to making reasoned thoughtful decisions its good to see someone is at least trying to get things done.

This could be an opportunity for us to think about utilizing a more technocratic expert-based approach to governing ourselves.

[Legato]

35 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Canadian Judges increasingly make governmental decisions

Given the shitty job the government does at getting around to making reasoned thoughtful decisions its good to see someone is at least trying to get things done.

This could be an opportunity for us to think about utilizing a more technocratic expert-based approach to governing ourselves.  

 

Which experts. Who decides what expertise is required, the politicians?. There are are many self described so called "experts".

Or would it be....Old McDonald had a farm    AI AI Oh shit the algorithm is broken.  ♫

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Yes, if they were suffering unbearably and had the mental capacity to choose on their own, then yes.  I wouldn’t have a say in it.  Even if I disagreed that they should choose that, it would be their choice.  

That kind of thinking is a sign of being under the control of the dragon or Satan.  It is a rejection of God's truth and embracing evil under the belief that somehow choice is always a higher priority than the sanctity of human life.  God has certain rules or commands that he has give us in the Holy Bible.  There is a reason the Bible is called Holy.  It is because it came from God.  God's way of thinking is not the same as man's or Satan's.  When God says human life is sacred, nobody has a right to say I have a right or my child has rights that supercede what God says.   If we go by what you say, then anybody could do anything they feel like if they could get away with it.  

 

[TreeBeard]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

If we go by what you say, then anybody could do anything they feel like if they could get away with it.

Where did I say that?  
 

Do you believe a murderer can get into heaven?

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, TreeBeard said:

Where did I say that?  
 

Do you believe a murderer can get into heaven?

Your comments imply that you are not governed by any kind of moral principles and you do not appear willing to accept any.

A murderer could get into heaven if he repented and received forgiveness.  There is an example in the Bible of a man who did commit murder and later received forgiveness from God, that is King David.

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

A murderer could get into heaven if he repented and received forgiveness.  There is an example in the Bible of a man who did commit murder and later received forgiveness from God

So your god lets anyone get away with anything as well.  Murder someone?  Don’t worry, God will forgive you anyway.  

[eyeball]

58 minutes ago, Legato said:

Which experts. Who decides what expertise is required, the politicians?

Other experts through a process known as  peer review.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

Actually I heard the Nazis killed people with mental illness.  We are not far from that.  Next year MAID will be available to people with mental problems.

I've heard that Nazis used gas chambers and machine guns to kill the mentally ill. You say we're not far from administering MAID with these things too?

[blackbird]

8 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

So your god lets anyone get away with anything as well.  Murder someone?  Don’t worry, God will forgive you anyway.  

No, that is not what I said.  It all depends on whether one accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and believes that He died on the cross and shed His blood for an atonement for His sins personally.  You must come to God in faith and believe  in Jesus Christ. 

"  12  But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: {power: or, the right, or, privilege} 13  Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. " John 1:12, 13 KJV

"16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."  John 3:16 KJV

"12  But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13  From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14  For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. " Hebrews 10:12 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

 

[blackbird]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

I've heard that Nazis used gas chambers and machine guns to kill the mentally ill. You say we're not far from administering MAID with these things too?

Today government does not need gas chambers and machine guns.  They have lethal injections they can give to the mentally ill to end their life.  The end result is the same.  It is quiet and MAID advocates call it "dying with dignity".  It is still the same result as from gas chambers and machine guns.  There is no dignity involved.  That is propaganda. 

There is a similarity to Nazis and the objective is the same and Canada is heading in the same direction.  I understand they offered this to some veterans who sought help for mental problems.

Edited November 27, 2023 by blackbird

[Legato]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

Other experts through a process known as  peer review.

That all depends on which organisations  provides the funding for the so called peers.

What could go wrong.

[eyeball]

39 minutes ago, Legato said:

That all depends on which organisations  provides the funding for the so called peers.

What could go wrong.

Probably a fair bit less if we had a more robust system of public oversight.

[ExFlyer]

12 hours ago, eyeball said:

Other experts through a process known as  peer review.

You know that a camel is a horse designed by committee.

Peer review will just see some think one way and others think another. Look at the peer review regarding climate change...

[eyeball]

30 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Peer review will just see some think one way and others think another. Look at the peer review regarding climate change...

Exactly, and look at its enduring overwhelming consensus.

At some point just thinking about thinking some more about thinking about it starts looking conspicuous.

[MikhailinNorthBay]

Look at the " Morris " decision in Ontario.  A judge must consider anti black racism when sentencing someone from a marginalized community. 

Bill c75 and c5 both make that a law and it applies to bail.

Convicted criminals who carry guns and who shoot people get lower sentencing if they have the right race and this group almost is certainly going to get bail.

The most violent people get the less jail time. Makes sense, right?

[I am Groot]

20 hours ago, eyeball said:

This could be an opportunity for us to think about utilizing a more technocratic expert-based approach to governing ourselves.

Except these are not experts. They're lawyers who were appointed mostly for their diversity points. What exactly makes them experts in health, society, economics, or wise government policy?

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Except these are not experts. They're lawyers who were appointed mostly for their diversity points.

?

5 hours ago, I am Groot said:

What exactly makes them experts in health, society, economics, or wise government policy?

They're the ones that have been given a job no one else seems too inclined to do.

Or do you figure they pulled off a coup of some sort on their own?

[I am Groot]

19 hours ago, eyeball said:

?

They're the ones that have been given a job no one else seems too inclined to do.

Or do you figure they pulled off a coup of some sort on their own?

What job? They applied for the job of judge. 

If you mean 'changing society the RIGHT way' there is an argument, which I believe I posted, which suggests the elites are using appointments to the judiciary to make changes they are unable to make due to public opposition. Is that what you mean by 'given a job no one else seems too inclined to do'?

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, I am Groot said:

What job?

Making the governments decisions while politicians seduce the canine.

[ExFlyer]

On 11/27/2023 at 6:48 PM, I am Groot said:

Except these are not experts. They're lawyers who were appointed mostly for their diversity points. What exactly makes them experts in health, society, economics, or wise government policy?

They are not expected to be experts in anything like that.

They are lawyers and are to ensure the rule of constitution and law are applicable to the case inf front of them.

All laws and acts and procedures enacted by parliament are subject to review to ensure they comply with existing precedence and constitutional requirements. There is no  personal judgment, just decisions based on precedence and existing law.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

They are not expected to be experts in anything like that.

They are lawyers and are to ensure the rule of constitution and law are applicable to the case inf front of them.

They're in a good position to judge who and what makes someone an expert in whatever case is before them. Better no doubt than many politicians can.  Hopefully most politicians would also consult experts when faced with a technical issue or case outside their own experience or knowledge.

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

There is no personal judgment, just decisions based on precedence and existing law.

Those is what screws things up when all the decisions are left up to politicians,  they're mostly based on politics despite what experts advise.

I say we need more experts involved with directing policy.

[ExFlyer]

36 minutes ago, eyeball said:

They're in a good position to judge who and what makes someone an expert in whatever case is before them. Better no doubt than many politicians can.  Hopefully most politicians would also consult experts when faced with a technical issue or case outside their own experience or knowledge.

Those is what screws things up when all the decisions are left up to politicians,  they're mostly based on politics despite what experts advise.

I say we need more experts involved with directing policy.

They do not "judge" people. They adjudicate the question before them.

Politics is exactly why and how laws are made. The politicians hear what people (you) want and make laws to appease you. The courts and supreme court is there to ensure the "politically motivated" laws are within the present constitution and the present legal structure.

Not sure where you get the idea that a judge just sits there and say "yeah, that's a good idea or not a good idea"  LOL

Experts are everywhere. Even you seem to think you are an expert if you insist "experts" are needed. You are in expert in what?

What is an expert anyway? Someone that agrees with your take on things??  LOL

 

[I am Groot]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

They are not expected to be experts in anything like that.

They are lawyers and are to ensure the rule of constitution and law are applicable to the case inf front of them.

All laws and acts and procedures enacted by parliament are subject to review to ensure they comply with existing precedence and constitutional requirements. There is no  personal judgment, just decisions based on precedence and existing law.

You are telling me the judges on the supreme court are robots?

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

Making the governments decisions while politicians seduce the canine.

In other words, the elites in charge appoint people whose ideological views are similar to their own in order to bring about laws in ways they know the public won't support. 

Which is fundamentally undemocratic.

So why is this a bad thing when Trump does it?

Edited November 29, 2023 by I am Groot