Canadian Judges increasing make governmental decisions

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

They do not "judge" people.

They have to question and ascertain the credibility and expertise of witnesses. 

5 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

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

I didn't, the idea is that the judge sits there and determines the ideas the experts are putting forward are good because they know what they're talking about.

8 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

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

And this is why politicians never get anything done.

[eyeball]

13 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

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.

Well obviously we're going to have to change things so elites have no more or less say in how things are determined than ordinary people.

I've suggested how to do that many times - stopping or at least interfering somehow with the in-camera lobbying that makes the elites the decision makers.

For some very odd reason artisans can't or won't put up with that sort of transparency. They seem to think its undemocratic. Can you figure  out why?

Quote

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

Everything he does is bad because he's an arsehole.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

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

....

Where did you get that from???

Judges make judgment and provide decisions base don precedence and the charter. Yes, there can be different interpretation s but, like every democracy, the majority rules.

Clearly you lack understanding of the legal system, in Canada and anywhere.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

They have to question and ascertain the credibility and expertise of witnesses. 

I didn't, the idea is that the judge sits there and determines the ideas the experts are putting forward are good because they know what they're talking about.

And this is why politicians never get anything done.

No, judges do not make cases, they rule on legal standing of the case. Lawyers question and ascertain.   https://cscja.ca/the-judges-role/

Judges do not "determine the ideas" of anything. They rule on the legal application and validate the case in front of them.

Politicians think they can do as they wish and often make laws that cannot be enforced under our present rules, laws and constitution. That is why the supreme court often strikes down a law.

Politicians never get anything done because they do not do enough due diligence (in the house as well as senate), they do many things for the optics alone.

 

[herbie]

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

Politicians never get anything done because they do not do enough due diligence (in the house as well as senate), they do many things for the optics alone.

Cough... Harper... cough cough!

The Supreme Court does not make governmental decisions, it rules on if govt decisions violate the Constitution or Charter or not. Govts often make wrong decisions and they've tossed many Trudeau govt decisions as well. The only difference 'politically' was that those were not ALL Crime Bills spewed out 3 times a day each sitting of Parliament.

Edited November 29, 2023 by herbie

[ExFlyer]

1 minute ago, herbie said:

Cough... Harper... cough cough!

The Supreme Court does not make governmental decisions, it rules on if govt decisions violate the Constitution or Charter or not. Govts often make wrong decisions and they've tossed many Trudeau govt decisions as well. The only difference 'politically' was that those were not ALL Crime Bills spewed out 3 times a day each sitting of Parliament.

Thank you for verifying what I have been saying. The supreme court is not political, it is legal.

No government or leader or politician is safe from the rulings of the supreme court, or any court.

[herbie]

Somewhat helped by a Constitution and Charter written 200 years later and more precise.

IE not open to interpretations like YOU personally = a  militia, and the colour of your skin, church you attend, or lack of a penis does not make you three-fifths human.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Thank you for verifying what I have been saying. The supreme court is not political, it is legal.

No government or leader or politician is safe from the rulings of the supreme court, or any court.

the court does indeed make political decisions.  Most 'courts' do, including civil tribunals.

And they definitely create law. That happens all the time.

"law" is by definition "opinion".  While the law may be written, it's meaning is interpretation not 'science'.

Cruel and unusual for example - how does one decide if something is 'cruel'? That's a made up word that humans interpret individually. There's no such thing as a 'cruel-o-meter' where you can actually take a measurement.

And opinion is always swayed by one's beliefs, political and otherwise.

[I am Groot]

5 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Where did you get that from???

Judges make judgment and provide decisions base don precedence and the charter. Yes, there can be different interpretation s but, like every democracy, the majority rules.

Clearly you lack understanding of the legal system, in Canada and anywhere.

I don't know why you think it was a good idea to toss in that last sentence since you clearly don't know a damn thing more about than I do. You just have different 'interpretations' of what you see. You seem to be WAYYYYYY more trusting of government and its institutions and policies than I am, despite obvious failings.

I really don't get how everyone can tsk tsk about how Trump is appointing people to the courts to get his way and how this is very clear and obvious and getting him rulings like banning abortion while at the same time laughing in mockery at the idea the courts of saintly Canada could possibly be open to the same manipulation.

Do you think the people appointed to the SC are completely lacking in ideological beliefs, prejudices and political views somehow? Oh, wait, of course not. But they're such saintly individuals they know to put that aside, right? It's just a coincidence that Trudeau appoints a bunch of progressives to the courts and we get a bunch of progressive rulings. And the fact he appoints approximately ZERO people with conservative views is of no relevance because, of course, their personal views are of no importance to judges. Apparently the politicians aren't aware of this. You should let them know.

Edited November 30, 2023 by I am Groot

[OftenWrong]

18 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

I don't know why you think it was a good idea to toss in that last sentence since you clearly don't know a damn thing more about than I do. You just have different 'interpretations' of what you see. You seem to be WAYYYYYY more trusting of government and its institutions and policies than I am, despite obvious failings.

I really don't get how everyone can tsk tsk about how Trump is appointing people to the courts to get his way and how this is very clear and obvious and getting him rulings like banning abortion while at the same time laughing in mockery at the idea the courts of saintly Canada could possibly be open to the same manipulation.

Do you think the people appointed to the SC are completely lacking in ideological beliefs, prejudices and political views somehow? Oh, wait, of course not. But they're such saintly individuals they know to put that aside, right? It's just a coincidence that Trudeau appoints a bunch of progressives to the courts and we get a bunch of progressive rulings. And the fact he appoints approximately ZERO people with conservative views is of no relevance because, of course, their personal views are of no importance to judges. Apparently the politicians aren't aware of this. You should let them know.

This is one area where the PM of Canada has more power and authority than the US president, as PM gets to singularly choose who getsvappointed to the supreme court, while US has a more democratic process that involves the senate.

There is still the potential for partisan appointments in the US system however, obviously.

[ExFlyer]

11 hours ago, I am Groot said:

I don't know why you think it was a good idea to toss in that last sentence since you clearly don't know a damn thing more about than I do. ....

....

Do you think the people appointed to the SC are completely lacking in ideological beliefs, prejudices and political views somehow? .....

I "threw" that in because it seems you truly do not know the legal system.

Ideology, prejudices and political views are not what is asked of the judicial system. All judgments are made outside of those and based on present laws and our charter. The US system and Trump are not what is in Canada.

 

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I "threw" that in because it seems you truly do not know the legal system.

Ideology, prejudices and political views are not what is asked of the judicial system. All judgments are made outside of those and based on present laws and our charter. The US system and Trump are not what is in Canada.

Yeahhh bullshit. You seem to have decided to shelter yourself from reality as much as possible.

Let's look at a recent ruling by the appeal court which trashed a decision by Ontario's divisional court to toss out Ontario's math tests for teachers as "wacist!". The divisional court found it was WACIST! because some blacks fared worse than most whites on the test in the preliminary results. 

Now who were the justices on the divisional court that found the test was WACIST!? A group of progressives, of course! Their decision in the case could be reliably predicted given their backgrounds. Note the minor in French for Nishikawa. Bilingual and racalized! Defintely heading for the supreme court!

Madam Justice Sandra Nishikawa was born and raised in Toronto. She received a B.A. in international relations with a minor in French from the University of Toronto, and went on to earn B.C.L. and LL.B. degrees from the Faculty of Law at McGill University. Justice Nishikawa was called to the bars of Ontario and New York in 1999. In 2009, she completed her LL.M. at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law with a thesis that examined diversity on administrative tribunals. Most recently, Justice Nishikawa was counsel at the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Madam Justice Nancy Backhouse is currently serving on the Superior Court of Justice for Ontario. Before her appointment to the bench, Justice Backhouse was a family law lawyer and labour arbitrator. She was also a bencher and chair of the Admissions and Equity Committee of the Law Society, vice-chair of the Ontario Grievance Settlement Board, and a director of the Advocates’ Society. During her time as a Bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada, Nancy Backhouse founded the Lawyers Feed the Hungry Program with Martin Teplitsky.

 

Edited November 30, 2023 by I am Groot

[Nationalist]

20 hours ago, eyeball said:

Everything he does is bad because he's an arsehole.

And this...ladies and gentlemen...is why the USA and much of the western world, is such a mess.

These Libbie dweebs don't care about things like effectiveness for a nation. All they care about is doing the opposite of Orangemanbad. Like...opening the southern border. Its not about the nation...its about their precious feewings. To Hell with the nation...the people...the economy...just oppose anything Trump...at all costs.

[ExFlyer]

52 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Yeahhh bullshit. You seem to have decided to shelter yourself from reality as much as possible.

.....

 

Yeah OK. ??

I am very much in tune with reality, it is you that seems to want to disregard the real facts.

You don't like the ruling so therefore it is crooked.

Know what the legal system is and quit your crap.

Edited November 30, 2023 by ExFlyer

[eyeball]

So I take it technocracy is still taboo.

I certainly didn't mean that judges would be the technocrats, I was simply pointing out that we could, if we chose to do so, let experts decide what needs to be done when they politicians can't or won't.