Martin Says Harper Will "Politicize" Court

[tml12]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...National/Canada

More proof Martin is desperate:

He says vote Liberal because Harper will politicize the Supreme Court.

The Liberals have politicized the Supreme Court, the Senate, the civil service, and every level of government in the last 12 years. :angry:

Too bad another weekend seperates Canada and a Harper government...

[Hicksey]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...National/Canada

More proof Martin is desperate:

He says vote Liberal because Harper will politicize the Supreme Court.

The Liberals have politicized the Supreme Court, the Senate, the civil service, and every level of government in the last 12 years. :angry:

Too bad another weekend seperates Canada and a Harper government...

Harper is getting a stacked court stacked with Liberal appointments and he's going to politicize the courts? Do these people think we're stupid? Harper can't do anything without a vacancy. And its not likely that he'll see enough vacancies to do anything of substance with the court.

What's next Mr. Martin?

Will Harper threaten put gays and lesbians in concentration camps? I'm just not as good as this fear mongering as Martin. I'm sure he can come up with something closer to being morally repulsive and scarier too. He's got 2.5 days.

This is where politicans go when they realize their ideas are inferior.

[sage]

Why the hell would Harper even go here?

It's this Reform party rhetoric that killed them the last 3 elections.

And why even called the Liberals on politicizing the judiciary? You don't think there are 12 years of Queen's Bench appointments wating to be filled to long-time Tory supporters?

There's not one voter who thought, "Now that I know the Tories won't be able to implement their agenda, I'll vote for them."

Stupid. Just Stupid.

[Hicksey]

Why the hell would Harper even go here?

It's this Reform party rhetoric that killed them the last 3 elections.

And why even called the Liberals on politicizing the judiciary? You don't think there are 12 years of Queen's Bench appointments wating to be filled to long-time Tory supporters?

There's not one voter who thought, "Now that I know the Tories won't be able to implement their agenda, I'll vote for them."

Stupid. Just Stupid.

And liberals eat this stuff up. Amazing isn't it?

[scribblet]

I suppose the liberals havn't politicized the courts by stacking them with liberals ! Just how many seats will becoming vacaant in the next few years? When are going to have a procedure for vetting judges and giving parliament a say in the appointments.

[geoffrey]

I suppose the liberals havn't politicized the courts by stacking them with liberals ! Just how many seats will becoming vacaant in the next few years? When are going to have a procedure for vetting judges and giving parliament a say in the appointments.

Good call. The Supreme Court is already full, to the best of my knowledge, and at the end of the day thats the only one that matters.

[sage]

Are you people just talking about the Supreme Court? I hope so becuase it is generally the only Court with an enumerated number of judges.

I can't speak for the Federal Court, but the vast number of appointments are to the Court of Queen's Bench, and provincial Court's of Appeal. There are no specific number of judges on either level.

How much of this really matters, Supreme Court or not? The decisions where politics actually matters are few and far between, and I think our Courts have done a fairly decent job. They've been everything from liberal (the sleeze bar decision) to right wing (the health care decision), and anywhere in between.

Not to say there's not points of disagreement with some things, but at least our Court, regardless who appoints them, hasn't denigrated (generally) into the partisan nonsense that happens accross the border.

[tml12]

I suppose the liberals havn't politicized the courts by stacking them with liberals ! Just how many seats will becoming vacaant in the next few years? When are going to have a procedure for vetting judges and giving parliament a say in the appointments.

Good call. The Supreme Court is already full, to the best of my knowledge, and at the end of the day thats the only one that matters.

I think there is a vacancy now actually, which is good.

Who knows, maybe Harper will appoint someone qualified.

[geoffrey]

I think there is a vacancy now actually, which is good.

Who knows, maybe Harper will appoint someone qualified.

Ooo Ooo!! Vote me! Vote me!

I just need to help out Martin a bit and maybe he'll appoint me by election day?

[tml12]

I think there is a vacancy now actually, which is good.

Who knows, maybe Harper will appoint someone qualified.

Ooo Ooo!! Vote me! Vote me!

I just need to help out Martin a bit and maybe he'll appoint me by election day?

If Harper keeps going Liberal-lite you may have a chance.

[Argus]

Not to say there's not points of disagreement with some things, but at least our Court, regardless who appoints them, hasn't denigrated (generally) into the partisan nonsense that happens accross the border.

Our court hasn't "degenerated" into partisanship because there needs to be two sides to have a fight, and conservatives are not represented on the Canadian Supreme Court. In any event, the fights in the US are always between opposite sides of Congress over appointments. The Court itself operates quite smoothly.

So the only real difference here is that there are no fights over the appointment process because we don't have any system for challenging appointments. The PM appoints whomever he wants without fear of any kind of parliamentary challenge.

What I'd like to see is for a truly independant body of esteemed jurists to choose the most learned, most capable, most experienced and most brilliant among their number and put that person, regardless of race, sex, or province of residence, into the Supreme Court.

[Argus]

I suppose the liberals havn't politicized the courts by stacking them with liberals ! Just how many seats will becoming vacaant in the next few years? When are going to have a procedure for vetting judges and giving parliament a say in the appointments.

Good call. The Supreme Court is already full, to the best of my knowledge, and at the end of the day thats the only one that matters.

I think there is a vacancy now actually, which is good.

Who knows, maybe Harper will appoint someone qualified.

If I were Harper, I would make a big production out of consulting with everyone else, and naming an absolute legal genius, a towering figure of insightful wisdom and articulation - and then contrasting that appointment with Martin's the last two, who were appointed because they were advocates for homosexual marriage in order to help him get out of a temporary political fix.

[Guest eureka]

There is going to be a vacancy before too long. Major will be retiring.

Sage" how does it feel to try to post some sense and have this right wing crap thrown back? The level of ignorance is appaling. We have gone throught the appointment process before and still this "appointment on whim" is claimed.

With some, it is ignorance and with others it is crass partisanship that supports a slander against all judges.

Sometimes, political appointtments do slip into the lower court levels but there is never one that is not legally qualified or who has the power to get away with a political judgement.

In Canada's history, there has only ever been one judge removed from the bench for cause, A contrast to the "desirable" American methods where removal and juducial corruption is routine.

[geoffrey]

There is going to be a vacancy before too long. Major will be retiring.

Sage" how does it feel to try to post some sense and have this right wing crap thrown back? The level of ignorance is appaling. We have gone throught the appointment process before and still this "appointment on whim" is claimed.

With some, it is ignorance and with others it is crass partisanship that supports a slander against all judges.

Sometimes, political appointtments do slip into the lower court levels but there is never one that is not legally qualified or who has the power to get away with a political judgement.

In Canada's history, there has only ever been one judge removed from the bench for cause, A contrast to the "desirable" American methods where removal and juducial corruption is routine.

There goes the eureka anti-American statements again. Because the Americans remove judges somehow is linked to corruption. Damn that accountability eh? I sure hate to have power over the apointed judiciary.

[Hicksey]

There is going to be a vacancy before too long. Major will be retiring.

Sage" how does it feel to try to post some sense and have this right wing crap thrown back? The level of ignorance is appaling. We have gone throught the appointment process before and still this "appointment on whim" is claimed.

With some, it is ignorance and with others it is crass partisanship that supports a slander against all judges.

Sometimes, political appointtments do slip into the lower court levels but there is never one that is not legally qualified or who has the power to get away with a political judgement.

In Canada's history, there has only ever been one judge removed from the bench for cause, A contrast to the "desirable" American methods where removal and juducial corruption is routine.

There goes the eureka anti-American statements again. Because the Americans remove judges somehow is linked to corruption. Damn that accountability eh? I sure hate to have power over the apointed judiciary.

Actually, on the lower levels this does happen. But it has been years since a major court -- appellate or otherwise has censured a judge let alone removed them from the bench. There's a few on the 9th circus that have imagined rights for people with no punitive action.

Did you know that court overturned a ballot iniative by Californians to disallow illegal immigrants free access to health care, education and other government provided services? Apparently you don't even have to be an American to have rights there. The surpreme court ruled that illegal aliens have rights just the same as Americans. If that's not judicial activism, supplanting law for personal politics I don't know what is. The initiative was supported by nearly 75% of Californians.

This can happen here too. And this is why scrapping the notwithstanding clause was about the stupidest, most irresponsible thing out of a Canadian PMs mouth in decades.

I have no problem with immigration into our country so long as its done legally. And bring some money because we don't want welfare recipients, we've got plenty already.

[Boru]

I suppose the liberals havn't politicized the courts by stacking them with liberals ! Just how many seats will becoming vacaant in the next few years? When are going to have a procedure for vetting judges and giving parliament a say in the appointments.

Good call. The Supreme Court is already full, to the best of my knowledge, and at the end of the day thats the only one that matters.

I think there is a vacancy now actually, which is good.

Who knows, maybe Harper will appoint someone qualified.

And by qualified, you surely mean Conservative. If you think the Liberals haven't put qualified judges into the SUpreme Court, than your just one more in the unintelligable Conservative mob wetting themselves over the Liberal self-destruction.

Honeslty...there is some sort of requirement to being nominated as a Supreme Court judge...you know, experience....knowledge of law...etc....etc....

The fact the te Liberals have stacked the court is no different than what Harper will do, and what Mulroney did as well.

What martin is appealing to is the massive amount of Conservative supporters who are in fact Liberal minded, but have lost faith in the current Liberal party. Yes...we want change in government, accountability, etc...but we don't want any Conservative agenda directing where our country goes long-term.

Martin is simply trying to convince that voting portion that they are making much more than a protest vote by bringing in Harper.

Is he right? No, I don't think so. But it's a valid point nonehteless.

[Hicksey]

I suppose the liberals havn't politicized the courts by stacking them with liberals ! Just how many seats will becoming vacaant in the next few years? When are going to have a procedure for vetting judges and giving parliament a say in the appointments.

Good call. The Supreme Court is already full, to the best of my knowledge, and at the end of the day thats the only one that matters.

I think there is a vacancy now actually, which is good.

Who knows, maybe Harper will appoint someone qualified.

And by qualified, you surely mean Conservative. If you think the Liberals haven't put qualified judges into the SUpreme Court, than your just one more in the unintelligable Conservative mob wetting themselves over the Liberal self-destruction.

Honeslty...there is some sort of requirement to being nominated as a Supreme Court judge...you know, experience....knowledge of law...etc....etc....

The fact the te Liberals have stacked the court is no different than what Harper will do, and what Mulroney did as well.

What martin is appealing to is the massive amount of Conservative supporters who are in fact Liberal minded, but have lost faith in the current Liberal party. Yes...we want change in government, accountability, etc...but we don't want any Conservative agenda directing where our country goes long-term.

Martin is simply trying to convince that voting portion that they are making much more than a protest vote by bringing in Harper.

Is he right? No, I don't think so. But it's a valid point nonehteless.

Its been years since a conservative government has had more than a term to do anything in this country. Even Harris in his 6 years before exiting stage left was stopped dead in his tracks when right out of the doors Martin robbed him (and all the other Premiers) blind in his party's 1995 budget. It's hard not to run a deficit when 40% of your federal transfer payments -- money you were counting on -- vanish into thin air.

Nobody knows, good or bad, what the conservatives of today are capable of long term. Give them a chance and maybe they'll surprise you.

[Hicksey]

Back in the real world, the next PM will get to nominate one -- count 'em, one -- judge to the nine-member Supreme Court in the foreseeable future .... Of the last nine judges on the court, seven were appointed by Liberals (Martin and Jean Chretien); two by Brian Mulroney.

Quote Source Here

With a maximum of three judges friendly to his cause out of nine how is Harper supposed to do this politicization and get any results?

Its hard not to laugh at Martin and his weak-minded smear.

Liberal supporters: Does this kind of weak minded attack actually do something for you?

[wellandboy]

Harper talks about changing the selection process so judge selection involves parliament (elected), Liberal advocate the status quo, selection by the the PMO. Hmm..... philosphically, the former sounds progressive and the latter conservative. Just as Harper's Accountability Act is progressive and the Liberal's, we'll wait for second Gomery, and then maybe we'll do something..... is not progressive.

By making the selection process more visible, Canadians have the opportunity to become more involved and more informed about the powers that affect their lives. The Liberal viewpoint, that the Prime Minister is only capable of making these selections is largely what this election is about. Try as they may, the Liberal political alchemists won't be able to transform the substance of Harper's proposal to Liberal gold. Canadians are too smart for that.

[scribblet]

I wouldn't like to see a selection process exactly the same as the U.S. it is far too partisan where days of constant grilling and rewording of questions is bound to cause some differences. I would like to see a process where the candidates can be questioned by members of all parties, them voted on by Parliament.

Its funny, judges are supposed to interpret law and render a decision based on these laws. Obviously we don't see them being impartial or doing their job properly, or we wouldn't be so concerned about who appoints them.

[tml12]

I didn't say they never appointed qualified people.

What I insinuated was that this country does not have the same appointment process the U.S. does and, as a result, "irregularities" happen and certain people who "just so happen" to have "been Liberals" and "given money to the Liberal Party" were appoited judges.

Causality or coincidence? You decide...

[Guest eureka]

You people are beyond the pale. Harper has slandered the judiciary and the civil service. Institutions that are not allowed to fight back, by the way. The Canadian Supreme Court has a history of independence and non-politicization that is unsurpassed in the world. The appointment process is as near perfect a method as has yet been devised anywhere.

Harper has said clearly and emphatically that he does intend to politicize the Courts and the Civil Service. He intends to appoint judges on the basis of their political and social leanings - and promote senior civil servants with the same "qualifications."

You (Geoffrey) call pointing to the perils, proven perils, of the American system, anti-Americanism. That is a slur against me personally.

The whole defense of Harper on the part of the Conservatives makes me wonder if what passes for democracy is not a mistake. Perhaps a benevolent dictatorship would be the best form of government for a people with the collective morality and knowledge of - well, you pick the vermin.

[Leafless]

I can't help but wonder if it was an accident that five of the nine Supreme Court judges are from Quebec.

No, of course not Liberals would not ever want to politicize or influence decissions coming from our Supreme Court possibly favouring Quebec ideologies.

[tml12]

You people are beyond the pale. Harper has slandered the judiciary and the civil service. Institutions that are not allowed to fight back, by the way. The Canadian Supreme Court has a history of independence and non-politicization that is unsurpassed in the world. The appointment process is as near perfect a method as has yet been devised anywhere.

Harper has said clearly and emphatically that he does intend to politicize the Courts and the Civil Service. He intends to appoint judges on the basis of their political and social leanings - and promote senior civil servants with the same "qualifications."

You (Geoffrey) call pointing to the perils, proven perils, of the American system, anti-Americanism. That is a slur against me personally.

The whole defense of Harper on the part of the Conservatives makes me wonder if what passes for democracy is not a mistake. Perhaps a benevolent dictatorship would be the best form of government for a people with the collective morality and knowledge of - well, you pick the vermin.

"The appointment process is as near perfect a method as has yet been devised anywhere."

HA!

[Hicksey]

You people are beyond the pale. Harper has slandered the judiciary and the civil service. Institutions that are not allowed to fight back, by the way. The Canadian Supreme Court has a history of independence and non-politicization that is unsurpassed in the world. The appointment process is as near perfect a method as has yet been devised anywhere.

Harper has said clearly and emphatically that he does intend to politicize the Courts and the Civil Service. He intends to appoint judges on the basis of their political and social leanings - and promote senior civil servants with the same "qualifications."

You (Geoffrey) call pointing to the perils, proven perils, of the American system, anti-Americanism. That is a slur against me personally.

The whole defense of Harper on the part of the Conservatives makes me wonder if what passes for democracy is not a mistake. Perhaps a benevolent dictatorship would be the best form of government for a people with the collective morality and knowledge of - well, you pick the vermin.

Since these insults are not so obvious to us CPOC supporters why don't you spell them out.

When a PM appoints a judge to the courts he usually appoints one friendly to his ways. Martin and Chretien did that 7 times and I cannot figure out for the life of me why we should be offended that Harper would expect to do the same if he were elected.