Martin Says Harper Will "Politicize" Court

[Guest eureka]

You obviously know nothing of the appointment process and, since I have gone over that a few times already in these forums, I am not doing it again.

With Harper, you will get the corrupt Civil Service and Courts you deserve. He has told you so.

[Hicksey]

You obviously know nothing of the appointment process and, since I have gone over that a few times already in these forums, I am not doing it again.

With Harper, you will get the corrupt Civil Service and Courts you deserve. He has told you so.

Under Canadian law, the governor general appoints all justices of the court. However, by convention the prime minister alone decides who is appointed. Therefore, without approval or review by any other person or political body, the prime minister has virtual control over the appointment of Supreme Court judges.

Martin and Chretien had the same ability. Why all of a sudden is it a bad thing? Because your party isn't going to be the one in office?

And, conservative civil service and courts does not mean corrupt ones. At this point in our nation's history I think 'Liberal' would be a lot closer associated with corruption.

You keep saying that they'll be corrupt. Prove it. I can't imagine you would make such an accusation absent proof.

[scribblet]

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.

Your insults are increasing, guess it takes vermin to know one eh

Harper has not said he inteneds to politicize the Courts, please provide the quote, although Martin has allready done that by court packing, so I'd say the politicizing of the courts is pretty well a done deal, no one could do it any better than the liberals.

Harper has said he would prefer that a non-elected chamber respect the decisions made by the elected chamber, and affirmed it would be obvious that an " abuse of power by the Senate would bolster his argument for elected senators".

Supreme Court Justice John Major is likely the only mchance to select a new judge because the current bench is relatively young.

[tml12]

You obviously know nothing of the appointment process and, since I have gone over that a few times already in these forums, I am not doing it again.

With Harper, you will get the corrupt Civil Service and Courts you deserve. He has told you so.

When did he "tell us so" Eureka?

[geoffrey]

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

Well I won't retract that one. I simply said by claiming Harper likes the "desirable" an American type system, you were being anti-American in claiming that is a bad thing.

Tell me why being able to remove judges when they are too radical is a bad thing? I'll respect that argument. I won't respect its the American way so its automatically evil.

[Guest eureka]

If you were listening to your own leader, you would know that he has promised to appoint Conservative judges. To fo that, he would have to abandon a rather complicated process that ensures judicial impartiality: a process that has been with Canada from its beginning and has provides us with a judiciary that is indeed independent.

How you can ask when did he tell us when he has crowed about his intention to do so and it has been all over the media, is beyond me.

He has said that he is going to politicize the Courts" that is what appointing judges of any certain persuasion means.

It ought to make even a Conservative pause to think when the independent judiciary we have been proud of is to disappear.

[Slim MacSquinty]

[quote name='eureka' date='Jan 21 2006, 04:01 PM' post='90468']

If you were listening to your own leader, you would know that he has promised to appoint Conservative judges. To fo that, he would have to abandon a rather complicated process that ensures judicial impartiality: a process that has been with Canada from its beginning and has provides us with a judiciary that is indeed independent.

Do you read anything that isn't Liberal propaganda? First off that isn't what he said, even if he wanted unless he murdered them, he'll only get the opportunity to appoint on judge this term. I doubt you could even find many right wing judges since the Liberals have so dominated the patronidge appointment business in this country throughout the spectrum even the lower court judges.

With Harper, you will get the corrupt Civil Service and Courts you deserve. He has told you so.

Wasn't it a Liberal trying to convince us a couple of weeks ago that the Liberal politicians were all clean in the Adscam affair and was trying to blame the civil servants. What a crock.

[Canuck E Stan]

Eight of the nine judges were appointed by Liberals.

The judge who just retired was considered a conservative judge.

Harper will appoint a judge to replace him.

If Harper's judge is conservative, then by your statement it makes the others Liberal.

The next time a judge will be replaced is expected to be in 2013.

Tell me Eureka,who will be in power then?

Harper?Liberals?Conservatives?

How long will it take to stack the Supreme Court with Conservative judges?

Get realistic.

[scribblet]

If you were listening to your own leader, you would know that he has promised to appoint Conservative judges. To fo that, he would have to abandon a rather complicated process that ensures judicial impartiality: a process that has been with Canada from its beginning and has provides us with a judiciary that is indeed independent.

How you can ask when did he tell us when he has crowed about his intention to do so and it has been all over the media, is beyond me.

He has said that he is going to politicize the Courts" that is what appointing judges of any certain persuasion means.

It ought to make even a Conservative pause to think when the independent judiciary we have been proud of is to disappear.

Please provide source and quotes for your assertions. As as someone else has allready said, why is okay for the liberals to politicize the courts but its not okay for a conservative gov't to choose a 'conservative' judge. Hypocritical double standards here.

As for your assertions that a CPC civil service will be corrupt, you have no proof or backup for such spurious accusations.

As far as wonderful unbiased independant judges, yeah sure, Rosie Abella is one of the most biased and left wing socially engineering judge you'll ever get on the bench.

[Argus]

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.

Qualified. An interesting term. Technically speaking, anyone who is a lawyer is "qualified" to be a judge. And any judge is "qualified" to be on the supreme court. Qualfied? It's a term often used by the left to excuse putting barely competent people into jobs through "affirmative action" type rules and regulations. If you get 51% on an exam you are "qualified". Of course, if you get 99% you're probably a hell of a lot MORE qualified.

But hey, all the left has to say is "we hired/promoted someone who was qualified".

The two women recently appointed to the Supreme Court were "qualified" in the narrow sense of the word. There is no question they were specifically appointed because of known opinions on same-sex marriage and gay rights. None. Hey, they were qualified.

Were there a thousand people in this country far and away MORE qualified? Sure. Were there people whose wisdom, whose intelligence, whose vast, sweeping knowledge of law in all its intricate details, whose articulation leaves readers and listeners in awe, were there such people who make the two new judges seem like clueless idiots? Certainly. But they weren't friends of the party with the proper liberal backgrounds.

And the courts are full of such people, qualfied, if barely, but not as sharp, as smart, as wise, as capable as others who were never considered because their political or social beliefs weren't in line with the government of the day.

[Argus]

If you were listening to your own leader, you would know that he has promised to appoint Conservative judges. To fo that, he would have to abandon a rather complicated process that ensures judicial impartiality:

Sputtering, clueless drivel.

The complicated process is... how much free legal services have you provided the party?

He has said that he is going to politicize the Courts" that is what appointing judges of any certain persuasion means.

And the Liberals havent't been doing that for most of the last thirty years?

It ought to make even a Conservative pause to think when the independent judiciary we have been proud of is to disappear.

Proud of? I feel about judges about the same way I feel about vermin. I try not to touch them without washing my hands afterwards.

But the judiciary will be no more in the control of the government with a few Conservative judges added to the mix than it is with a steady stream of liberal judges appointed due to their connections with the Liberal party. And maybe, just maybe, we'll have a few judges that don't smile and pat thugs and gangsters on the hand and send them back out to rape and beat and maim and kill quite so quickly, eh?

[Guest eureka]

Argus, I won't be bothered with your ravings for we have been through this before Harper made it a political issue.

For the others, though: SCC judges are appointed through a process that includes consultation with Provincial Attorney Generals (means Ralph Klein has a say) Bar Associations amd :aw societies. No judge ever gets to sit on the Supreme Court without the advice of all these.

Politicization is out of the question and the naming of Rosie Abella, for example, by a poster is merely the prejudice of that poster.

Harper has said that he will appoint Conservative judges. That means only that he will scrap the selection process and act dictatorially to appoint those who have demonstrated sympathy with his ideas.

He has said the same of the senior levels of the Civil Service.

This goes further, much further, than even Mulroney who set the bar at a new height for patronage appointments.

[geoffrey]

Argus, I won't be bothered with your ravings for we have been through this before Harper made it a political issue.

For the others, though: SCC judges are appointed through a process that includes consultation with Provincial Attorney Generals (means Ralph Klein has a say) Bar Associations amd :aw societies. No judge ever gets to sit on the Supreme Court without the advice of all these.

Politicization is out of the question and the naming of Rosie Abella, for example, by a poster is merely the prejudice of that poster.

Harper has said that he will appoint Conservative judges. That means only that he will scrap the selection process and act dictatorially to appoint those who have demonstrated sympathy with his ideas.

He has said the same of the senior levels of the Civil Service.

This goes further, much further, than even Mulroney who set the bar at a new height for patronage appointments.

Sorry I forgot. The Liberals are the poster boys of following due process and advisement procedures.

The same party that doesn't listen to non-confidence votes and refused to listen to a motion for a February election even though it was support by a majority of the house.

I have no faith in the Liberals following any rules. If you are so naive to think that when Martin was picking his court, that he listened to Ralph Klein's (or the Attorney General of Alberta's) opinion, I pitty you.

[tml12]

Argus, I won't be bothered with your ravings for we have been through this before Harper made it a political issue.

For the others, though: SCC judges are appointed through a process that includes consultation with Provincial Attorney Generals (means Ralph Klein has a say) Bar Associations amd :aw societies. No judge ever gets to sit on the Supreme Court without the advice of all these.

Politicization is out of the question and the naming of Rosie Abella, for example, by a poster is merely the prejudice of that poster.

Harper has said that he will appoint Conservative judges. That means only that he will scrap the selection process and act dictatorially to appoint those who have demonstrated sympathy with his ideas.

He has said the same of the senior levels of the Civil Service.

This goes further, much further, than even Mulroney who set the bar at a new height for patronage appointments.

If true, at least Harper has the decently to admit he'll be biased...

[geoffrey]

If true, at least Harper has the decently to admit he'll be biased...

The results don't lie, the Liberals have only appointed like minded judges. Why would the Conservatives be expected to do otherwise, you'll always hire the guy that has similar values to yourself.

[mcqueen625]

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...

HERE! HERE!! And it's not politicized under the LIberals? The Supreme Court is presently made up from the ranks of lawyers who are nothing but political hacks, and their appointments are for favours rendered to the Party. If they were not then these same Justices would be selected by an ALL-PARTY selection committee, and affirmed by the House of Commons, not appointed by the Prime Minister.

After their latest ruling regarding orgy clubs, led by none other than one of Martin's latest appointees, Beverley McLachlin, is all the more reason why the power of the Supreme Court should be curtailed. Instead of curtailing it, Martin wants to remove the notwithstanding clause from the Charter, effectively making this unelected, and unaccountable body forever into a dictortorship, that will get to decide for all Canadian's what is and what isn't offensive to us as a people.

I quite sure that ruling is not supported by people with moral and values in this country. As someone pointed out in an article I read; If these clubs do not serve liquor someone will effectively be able to take a 14 year old, male of female into these establishments and as long as they consent, they can participate in an orgy, because in Canada, thanks to the LIberals, we still have the age of consent for sexual purposes set at 14 years of age. To me that is rather ironic since they are not old enough to get a driver's license until age 16 minimum. For something as serious as sexual consent it should be at least 16 and probably older, because a 14 year old is definitely not mature enough to be making those kinds of decisions, and they are far too vulnerable to sexual predators without a parent having anything to say about it.

I don't feel that Martin or the Liberal Party is representative of the type of Canada most of us wants.

[tml12]

I know that 14 and 15 year olds have sex but I wouldn't want them to have sex with anyone over someone in their early 20s.

A 15 year old with another 15 year old is OK. A 15 year old with a 40 year old is something I have issues with.

[scribblet]

Argus, I won't be bothered with your ravings for we have been through this before Harper made it a political issue.

For the others, though: SCC judges are appointed through a process that includes consultation with Provincial Attorney Generals (means Ralph Klein has a say) Bar Associations amd :aw societies. No judge ever gets to sit on the Supreme Court without the advice of all these.

Politicization is out of the question and the naming of Rosie Abella, for example, by a poster is merely the prejudice of that poster.

Harper has said that he will appoint Conservative judges. That means only that he will scrap the selection process and act dictatorially to appoint those who have demonstrated sympathy with his ideas.

He has said the same of the senior levels of the Civil Service.

This goes further, much further, than even Mulroney who set the bar at a new height for patronage appointments.

Just as your statements are merely your bias and prejudice.

Again, please provide the source and link for where Harper has said he dictatorially appoint those who....etc.

In an ideal world, we would have the three separate functions of governance, the legislature (makes laws and policies), the judiciary (resolves disputes by reference to the laws and policies), and the executive

(applies laws and policies). Regrettably, we have muddied the waters by investing the judiciary with legislative powers, and our executive (the PMO) also enjoys excessive freedom to dictate policies without reference to Parliament. The NWC is the only leash on the court we have. but it was Paul Martin that was offering to roll back democracy and look for the spin doctors to shape what he said about it. Make no mistake about it, he was saying that courts should be able to turn aside laws made by the members in the House of Commons.

Harper did say he sees power as being in principle allocated in a 50-50 division between Parliament and the Supreme Court with an ongoing dialogue betweenthe two bodies - not sure about that one.

Sure, both bodies are authorized to make and dismantle laws. But only one body is given the final word and that body is Parliament through the Charter's Notwithstanding Clause that was included for this express purpose.

As for the "ongoing dialogue", that is certainly the theory of some people but it has been an utter non-starter in practice, with the Courts imposing their revolutionary views of fundamentals norms of justice plucked out of nowhere in particular and with scant regard or respect for Parliament.

Clearly the CPC is the lesser evil of the two parties..

In theory Harper's statement that in England Parliament is supreme and in the U.S. the courts are supreme has quite a lot of merit. The notwithstanding clause has always been seen as a check on the powers of the courts. As Harper expressed it, it is a traditional Canadian compromise between American and English values.

[Argus]

Argus, I won't be bothered with your ravings for we have been through this before Harper made it a political issue.

Naming of judges has been a political issue for decades.

For the others, though: SCC judges are appointed through a process that includes consultation with Provincial Attorney Generals (means Ralph Klein has a say) Bar Associations amd :aw societies. No judge ever gets to sit on the Supreme Court without the advice of all these.

I can ask my dog for advice if it makes him feel better, but I don't have to do what he says. Regardless of what the "process" is, whereby the federal government "consults" with others, the decision is entirely up to the prime minister. As was obvious with the last two appointments.

Politicization is out of the question and the naming of Rosie Abella, for example, by a poster is merely the prejudice of that poster.

Hmm, I think even Liberals are laughing and rolling in the aisles over that one. Honestly, there's no point in further discussion. You are so out there on this that the conversation is actually bizarre.

[Guest eureka]

In an ideal world, we would have the three separate functions of governance, the legislature (makes laws and policies), the judiciary (resolves disputes by reference to the laws and policies), and the executive

And that is what we have in the real world of Canada. Harper's proposal is to subject the judiciary to the executive - as it is in the US. The ideal world is anybody's dream and you won't find two like views of what it is.

If you need a link to Harper's views, then you must have been asleep for the past couple of weeks.

The part about the Courts being supreme in the US, btw, should have gone into the "dumb remarks of the day" thread. The Courts have a theoretical equality, not supremacy - but, since they are political appointees who make up the Courts, in practise, they are merely a junior adjunct of the executive. As Harper wants them to be in Canada.

The results don't lie, the Liberals have only appointed like minded judges. Why would the Conservatives be expected to do otherwise, you'll always hire the guy that has similar values to yourself.

What results? Did it ever occur to you that you need to back up a statement like that. Again, that is what the Conservative "platform" is. Rotten wood; made up of stetements like that knowing that its support will swallow them unquestioningly.

The same party that doesn't listen to non-confidence votes and refused to listen to a motion for a February election even though it was support by a majority of the house.

The only non-c0nfidence vote is what led to an election. The government has no choice but to act on a non-confidence vote: as it did. But non-confidence votes have no merit with respect to terms of government except on money Bills.

Who cares about a motion on any other matter? Should a government resign every time some cockamany motion is brought before the House? A motion is a motion and an irresponsibly worded motion is an irresponsibly worded motion.

There is Parliamentary process and comvention that actually form part of the Constitution in a way you wouldn't understand. Why should we turn the principles of governence upside down because you don't like a certain P.M.?

[scribblet]

If you are making statementes based on what Paul Martin says...well !

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...9/BNStory/Front

Paul Martin yesterday accused Conservative Leader Stephen Harper of planning to stack the Supreme Court with politicized judges who would allow a social-conservative agenda drawn from the "extreme right" in the United States.

snip

Although Mr. Harper has said he would do neither, the Liberal Leader insisted that his opponent's remark that some judges are activist shows that he wants to politicize the courts.

Still waiting for a source and link to back up your statements, so far I have seen nothing and have found nothing in their platform to support your statements.

[Hicksey]

If you are making statementes based on what Paul Martin says...well !

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...9/BNStory/Front

Paul Martin yesterday accused Conservative Leader Stephen Harper of planning to stack the Supreme Court with politicized judges who would allow a social-conservative agenda drawn from the "extreme right" in the United States.

snip

Although Mr. Harper has said he would do neither, the Liberal Leader insisted that his opponent's remark that some judges are activist shows that he wants to politicize the courts.

Still waiting for a source and link to back up your statements, so far I have seen nothing and have found nothing in their platform to support your statements.

It's all about the seriousness of the charge and the effect they believe it will have on the general public to them. They're hoping it propels them to victory so it gets forgotten and they never have to admit they made it all up.

Just read his posts. Never a really in depth explanation. Ask for proof and none is ever provided. And then his arrogance. Every post reads like "If only you weren't so stupid you would understand ..."

He'd walk over broken glass to get to the white hot coals that he'd have to walk over to get to a voting booth to vote Liberal. Martin could crap in a bag and set it afire on his doorstep and he'd still defend him.

[Guest eureka]

I don't have time for your nonsense, Hicksey. There are voters to deal with. If you need a link to Harper's statements, then you have no right to pose as politically interested. The media have been full of them and for that reason alone, I would ignore your request.

[Hicksey]

I don't have time for your nonsense, Hicksey. There are voters to deal with. If you need a link to Harper's statements, then you have no right to pose as politically interested. The media have been full of them and for that reason alone, I would ignore your request.

I've read them all and its pretty obvious you liberals are reading way too far into them. Sometimes looking beyond the surface is useless because the answer lies there.

I haven't heard, read or seen anything from Harper that scares me more than another 4 years of the Liberals.

We've been though this before. Any idiot that thinks all the fear and smear you spread is true has no clue about how things go in Ottawa. If Harper did all the things you say he will he would be ousted by the opposition in short order and in the resulting election, the CPOC would be relegated to obscurity the likes of which the Green Party enjoys today.

We're not that stupid eureka. We understand that we're in a position to knock your party further down and stay in power for 8 years or more and such an agenda would never provide for that. And all we have to do is keep our promises.

[Guest eureka]

We're not that stupid eureka. We understand that we're in a position to knock your party further down and stay in power for 8 years or more and such an agenda would never provide for that. And all we have to do is keep our promises.

If you are not that stupid, why do you continue making stupid posts?

Anyone with half a brain and who had read anything I have written, would know that it is not my party. But that is about the limit of your understanding of anything isn't it?