Tory MP eats crow after ruffling judical feathers

[no1important]

A Saskatchewan MP took a swipe at the Supreme Court this weekend.

But Maurice Vellacott ruffled the judicial feathers and had to eat crow not long after.

Vellacott stepped on judicial toes in an interview Saturday with Christina Lawand of CBC News in Ottawa.

"I don't think it is the role of the judge, whether left or right or conservative or whatever stripe [he] happens to be, to actually figure to play the position of God," the Tory MP for Saskatoon-Wanuskewin told Lawand.

Vellacott, a former pastor who claims a doctoral degree from Trinity International University in Chicago, then singled out Beverley McLaughlin, the chief justice of Canada.

He claimed McLaughlin "herself said actually when they step into this role that suddenly there's some kind of mystical power that comes over them, which everything that they've ever decreed is not to be questioned.

"They actually have the discernment and almost prophetic ability to plumb and know the mind of the public."

Supreme court judges usually ignore the barbs that periodically come their way. But Vellacott's comments were apparently too much for McLaughlin. A spokesman for the chief justice "categorically denied" that she had ever said what Vellacott claimed.

"She has always said it is a judge's role to interpret and apply the law … but those choices are always made in accordance with legal precedents and with the laws laid down by parliament and the legislatures," the judicial spokesman said.

After that rebuff, it didn't take Vellacott long to issue a statement of his own.

"As I'm not a member of the cabinet, I obviously do not speak for the government of Canada on these matters," he said in a statement Sunday.

Ahh the fanatical fringe of Harpers party speaks out.

That really was a stupid dumbass thing to say.

Funny Harpocrit has not said anything yet. Does he hold the high court in such contempt as well?

Read the rest here

[Nocrap]

A Saskatchewan MP took a swipe at the Supreme Court this weekend.

But Maurice Vellacott ruffled the judicial feathers and had to eat crow not long after.

Vellacott stepped on judicial toes in an interview Saturday with Christina Lawand of CBC News in Ottawa.

"I don't think it is the role of the judge, whether left or right or conservative or whatever stripe [he] happens to be, to actually figure to play the position of God," the Tory MP for Saskatoon-Wanuskewin told Lawand.

Vellacott, a former pastor who claims a doctoral degree from Trinity International University in Chicago, then singled out Beverley McLaughlin, the chief justice of Canada.

He claimed McLaughlin "herself said actually when they step into this role that suddenly there's some kind of mystical power that comes over them, which everything that they've ever decreed is not to be questioned.

"They actually have the discernment and almost prophetic ability to plumb and know the mind of the public."

Supreme court judges usually ignore the barbs that periodically come their way. But Vellacott's comments were apparently too much for McLaughlin. A spokesman for the chief justice "categorically denied" that she had ever said what Vellacott claimed.

"She has always said it is a judge's role to interpret and apply the law

[Nocrap]

A reflection of Harper's distrust of the judicial system. Comments he himself made about judges lost him a few points in the last election and contributed to his loss of majority status.

Expect to see more of these remarks from the CPC caucus. Just look at them. Great ammo for the pundits but sadly they now almost run our country.

[Guest Warwick Green]

This season's Cheryl Gallant. Just as Harper is trying to make the party look moderate a conspiracy theorist jumps out of the cave.

Harper just appointed this guy head of the Aboriginal Affairs Committee. How long before he starts talking about "drunken indians"?

[Argus]

A Saskatchewan MP took a swipe at the Supreme Court this weekend.

But Maurice Vellacott ruffled the judicial feathers and had to eat crow not long after.

Vellacott stepped on judicial toes in an interview Saturday with Christina Lawand of CBC News in Ottawa.

"I don't think it is the role of the judge, whether left or right or conservative or whatever stripe [he] happens to be, to actually figure to play the position of God," the Tory MP for Saskatoon-Wanuskewin told Lawand.

Vellacott, a former pastor who claims a doctoral degree from Trinity International University in Chicago, then singled out Beverley McLaughlin, the chief justice of Canada.

He claimed McLaughlin "herself said actually when they step into this role that suddenly there's some kind of mystical power that comes over them, which everything that they've ever decreed is not to be questioned.

"They actually have the discernment and almost prophetic ability to plumb and know the mind of the public."

Supreme court judges usually ignore the barbs that periodically come their way. But Vellacott's comments were apparently too much for McLaughlin. A spokesman for the chief justice "categorically denied" that she had ever said what Vellacott claimed.

"She has always said it is a judge's role to interpret and apply the law … but those choices are always made in accordance with legal precedents and with the laws laid down by parliament and the legislatures," the judicial spokesman said.

After that rebuff, it didn't take Vellacott long to issue a statement of his own.

"As I'm not a member of the cabinet, I obviously do not speak for the government of Canada on these matters," he said in a statement Sunday.

Ahh the fanatical fringe of Harpers party speaks out.

What's fanatical about saying the SC decide matters as much on their own beliefs as on law?

That really was a stupid dumbass thing to say.

Gee, a misquote? Well, not the smartest, I'll admit, but only because he should make sure he has the quote in hand first.

Funny Harpocrit has not said anything yet. Does he hold the high court in such contempt as well?

I know I do. I hold almost all lawyers in contempt, and judges more than most. Most judges are nothing more than political operators anyway, who got their judgeships through political means. Few are noted for any great depths of legal accumen, wisdom or intelligence. You could probably replace the entire SC with nine randomly selected lawyers and get just as good - or bad - a job done.

[Argus]

A reflection of Harper's distrust of the judicial system. Comments he himself made about judges lost him a few points in the last election and contributed to his loss of majority status.

Expect to see more of these remarks from the CPC caucus. Just look at them. Great ammo for the pundits but sadly they now almost run our country.

Wheras the Liberal caucus is made up entirely of intelligent, capable, honest individuals like its present temporary leader, who is still shyly hiding his homosexuality from the public, though not from his party, and who still has rumours swirling about a 15 year old boy prostitute he allegedly kept at a Sussex St apartment. And Hedy "burning crosses" Fry, who hopes to be the next leader, and Scott "pst, want a stock tip" Brison, who jumped from the Tories and abandoned all his alleged beliefs except the sanctity of being santimonious, not to mention Brenda "see my pretty shoes!" Stronach who betrayed her party on the eve of a crucial vote for a cabinet position with the other team.

And these are the LEADERS!? We don't even know what kind of losers are in among the rank and file because the media pays no attention to them.

[Guest Warwick Green]

After that rebuff, it didn't take Vellacott long to issue a statement of his own.

"As I'm not a member of the cabinet, I obviously do not speak for the government of Canada on these matters," he said in a statement Sunday.

Translation: Harper's office got to him to "clarify" his remarks.

Mulroney had a hatchet man, Peter White, making sure the backbenchers were kept in line. I remember one Alberta redneck making an anti-French comment. The next day he was forced to make a statement that made him sound like Jacques Parizeau.

[Michael Hardner]

Wheras the Liberal caucus is made up entirely of intelligent, capable, honest individuals like its present temporary leader, who is still shyly hiding his homosexuality from the public, though not from his party, and who still has rumours swirling about a 15 year old boy prostitute he allegedly kept at a Sussex St apartment.

This is slanderous, Argus, and you're usually better than that.

The CPC has a few embarassments of its own, don't forget.

BTW Does anybody remember Tom Long, aka "I'm here for the long haul. ?"

Last I heard he was working for Mel Lastman but that must have been a long time ago.

[Hicksey]

A Saskatchewan MP took a swipe at the Supreme Court this weekend.

But Maurice Vellacott ruffled the judicial feathers and had to eat crow not long after.

Vellacott stepped on judicial toes in an interview Saturday with Christina Lawand of CBC News in Ottawa.

"I don't think it is the role of the judge, whether left or right or conservative or whatever stripe [he] happens to be, to actually figure to play the position of God," the Tory MP for Saskatoon-Wanuskewin told Lawand.

Vellacott, a former pastor who claims a doctoral degree from Trinity International University in Chicago, then singled out Beverley McLaughlin, the chief justice of Canada.

He claimed McLaughlin "herself said actually when they step into this role that suddenly there's some kind of mystical power that comes over them, which everything that they've ever decreed is not to be questioned.

"They actually have the discernment and almost prophetic ability to plumb and know the mind of the public."

Supreme court judges usually ignore the barbs that periodically come their way. But Vellacott's comments were apparently too much for McLaughlin. A spokesman for the chief justice "categorically denied" that she had ever said what Vellacott claimed.

"She has always said it is a judge's role to interpret and apply the law … but those choices are always made in accordance with legal precedents and with the laws laid down by parliament and the legislatures," the judicial spokesman said.

After that rebuff, it didn't take Vellacott long to issue a statement of his own.

"As I'm not a member of the cabinet, I obviously do not speak for the government of Canada on these matters," he said in a statement Sunday.

Ahh the fanatical fringe of Harpers party speaks out.

That really was a stupid dumbass thing to say.

Funny Harpocrit has not said anything yet. Does he hold the high court in such contempt as well?

Read the rest here

I do.

When the Liberals cannot ramrod their agenda through the house they usually find a line of Chretien and Trudeau appointed judges willing to ignore the law and give them what they want.

When the SCOC stops disrepecting the laws of this coutry and selling themselves to whatever cause is before them I'll show some respect for them.

That wasn't a dumbass thing to say at all. It was a valid criticism. The courts should not be able to make law -- only interpet and apply. If there is not sufficient law on a given subject the deficiency should be sent to parliament with a judicial recommendation and adequate legislation upon which to give a ruling sent back. Only people that are accountable to the people ought to be able to make law.

[Michael Hardner]

That wasn't a dumbass thing to say at all. It was a valid criticism. The courts should not be able to make law -- only interpet and apply. If there is not sufficient law on a given subject the deficiency should be sent to parliament with a judicial recommendation and adequate legislation upon which to give a ruling sent back. Only people that are accountable to the people ought to be able to make law.

They only interpret and apply. If you're speaking about the same-sex marriage issue, then your problem is with vague wording in the constitution itself, not with the process.

[Hicksey]

That wasn't a dumbass thing to say at all. It was a valid criticism. The courts should not be able to make law -- only interpet and apply. If there is not sufficient law on a given subject the deficiency should be sent to parliament with a judicial recommendation and adequate legislation upon which to give a ruling sent back. Only people that are accountable to the people ought to be able to make law.

They only interpret and apply. If you're speaking about the same-sex marriage issue, then your problem is with vague wording in the constitution itself, not with the process.

When they find rights where there never were any before, I call that judicial activism.

That case should not have been decided until parliament clarified that part of the constitution. Instead the judge went ahead and decided the case and set the precedent. Considering our system is largely based on precedent, they changed the constitution without a vote in the house and that IMHO is unconstitutional.

Not that I'd don't agree with relationship rights for homosexuals('gay marriage' is a different issue on wihch you can research my opinion), but it was gotten the wrong way. This sets the course for other causes to be had through the courts when they dont get what they want from Ottawa. Such core changes to our society should ony be able to be made by people that can be held accountable for their actions.

[Michael Hardner]

When they find rights where there never were any before, I call that judicial activism.

That case should not have been decided until parliament clarified that part of the constitution. Instead the judge went ahead and decided the case and set the precedent. Considering our system is largely based on precedent, they changed the constitution without a vote in the house and that IMHO is unconstitutional.

Not that I'd don't agree with relationship rights for homosexuals('gay marriage' is a different issue on wihch you can research my opinion), but it was gotten the wrong way. This sets the course for other causes to be had through the courts when they dont get what they want from Ottawa. Such core changes to our society should ony be able to be made by people that can be held accountable for their actions.

The document prohibited descrimination against identifiable groups. The constitution wasn't changed, it was interpreted as the justices were supposed to do. How is deciding that homosexuals are a group anything more than interpretation ? As I said, your problem is more with the loose wording in the original document.

[Guest Warwick Green]

That wasn't a dumbass thing to say at all. It was a valid criticism. The courts should not be able to make law -- only interpet and apply. If there is not sufficient law on a given subject the deficiency should be sent to parliament with a judicial recommendation and adequate legislation upon which to give a ruling sent back. Only people that are accountable to the people ought to be able to make law.

It's a pity it wasn't said in a reasonble way. If his comment had been that he thinks the decisions of the SCOC lack balance and that we need more constructionists on the court he would have had rave reviews - at least from conservatives. But to talk about the justices thinking they are God just makes him sound like a whacko.

[Black Dog]

It's hard to take any carping about the courts seriously when everyone, regardless of their political strips, knows that the peopel who whine about the liberal/Liberal biases of the court today would be singing the praises of a high court stacked with conservative/Conservative appointees handing down rulings against gay marriage, abortion etc. One's justice is another's judicial activism.

Me, I recognize the flaws and foibles of the SCC, the political nature of the game and the apparent biases of its members. But, since I generally am in acordance with those biases, I don't particularily care and I am honset enough to admit it.

[geoffrey]

You know what I have to say about this, it's an issue that has been so blown out of proportion.

CBC has been running at least 15 minutes per hour of coverage on this 'massive controversy' that has 'errupted from the ranks of the Conservative Party' showing 'widespread disrespect for our justices.'

What a joke. One CPC MP comes out and says he's not sure that the judges are truly interpreting laws and instead he feels like there is some creation of new laws happening. There was a misquotion involved from what I understand, but its hard to cut through the CBC rhetoric and thats the only network that thinks there is any merit in this story.

The MP presented his comments in a respectable manner, despite the misquote, and adequately presented his opinion. We've come along way from calling people 'morons' in the Liberal days. Did he misrepresent a quote, yes, and he should apologise.

But come on people, smarten up. When our MP's aren't allowed to comment on issues that concern them without major backlash from our government media, we've got more serious problems than a misquote.

What impact does this have on anyone, other than MacLaughlin whose has already had a release vindicating herself from these comments?

Grow up, let the man speak.

[shoop]

Why would it be slander? Do you have a problem with gay people?

There is nothing wrong with saying something if it is true.

Graham's preference is well known on the Hill.

Cheryl Gallant yelling "f*ggot" in the House during the Martin Government was classless without a doubt. But nobody ever questioned the veracity of her heckle.

This is slanderous, Argus, and you're usually better than that.

The CPC has a few embarassments of its own, don't forget.

BTW Does anybody remember Tom Long, aka "I'm here for the long haul. ?"

Last I heard he was working for Mel Lastman but that must have been a long time ago.

[Michael Hardner]

I take it back. But the deputy leader's sexuality is his own business and his privacy should be respected.

[betsy]

A reflection of Harper's distrust of the judicial system. Comments he himself made about judges lost him a few points in the last election and contributed to his loss of majority status.

Expect to see more of these remarks from the CPC caucus. Just look at them. Great ammo for the pundits but sadly they now almost run our country.

Wheras the Liberal caucus is made up entirely of intelligent, capable, honest individuals like its present temporary leader, who is still shyly hiding his homosexuality from the public, though not from his party, and who still has rumours swirling about a 15 year old boy prostitute he allegedly kept at a Sussex St apartment. And Hedy "burning crosses" Fry, who hopes to be the next leader, and Scott "pst, want a stock tip" Brison, who jumped from the Tories and abandoned all his alleged beliefs except the sanctity of being santimonious, not to mention Brenda "see my pretty shoes!" Stronach who betrayed her party on the eve of a crucial vote for a cabinet position with the other team.

And these are the LEADERS!? We don't even know what kind of losers are in among the rank and file because the media pays no attention to them.

Don't forget Carolyn Bennett and her recent prison-badly-needed prediction.

[shoop]

Fair enough, to an extent. I still think there are valid reasons to take issue with politicians having an affair. If it leads to deception it could make them susceptible to blackmail, etc. I don't know if I believe the rumour about the 15 y.o. prostitue. But if it is true that should definitely be an issue, regardless of the gender of said prostitute.

I take it back. But the deputy leader's sexuality is his own business and his privacy should be respected.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't know if I believe the rumour about the 15 y.o. prostitue. But if it is true that should definitely be an issue, regardless of the gender of said prostitute.

Ok. That's what I found to be slanderous. Whoever posted that could surely be sued if they can't prove it.

[Argus]

I take it back. But the deputy leader's sexuality is his own business and his privacy should be respected.

I think it is entirely relevent whenever the subject of homosexual rights enters into discussion. He is out on the hill, and out to his family and friends. He ought to have the honesty to be out to the voting public, too.

Furthermore, I don't understand this squeamishness about homosexuals and their sex lives. If there were allegations of a cabinet minister having kept a 15 year old girl as his love toy in a Sussex St apartment there is no way he would ever have escaped more careful scrutiny, and no way he would be acting leader. Even if it was an 18 year old, and he'd been indescreet enough for it be bandied about and joked about openly he never would have been named acting leader. But because Graham is gay everyone is supposed to consider whatever he does sacrosanct?

[Argus]

I don't know if I believe the rumour about the 15 y.o. prostitue. But if it is true that should definitely be an issue, regardless of the gender of said prostitute.

Ok. That's what I found to be slanderous. Whoever posted that could surely be sued if they can't prove it.

It was printed in Frank Magazine, with a picture of Graham on the cover wearing a tutu. And there were no lawsuits or threats of lawsuits. What does that tell you?

[August1991]

One CPC MP comes out and says he's not sure that the judges are truly interpreting laws and instead he feels like there is some creation of new laws happening. There was a misquotion involved from what I understand, but its hard to cut through the CBC rhetoric and thats the only network that thinks there is any merit in this story.

The MP presented his comments in a respectable manner, despite the misquote, and adequately presented his opinion. We've come along way from calling people 'morons' in the Liberal days. Did he misrepresent a quote, yes, and he should apologise.

The Chief Justice is named McLachlin, not McLaughlin, despite what the CBC says.

Indeed.

A Conservative MP claimed that the Chief Justice admitted that the Supreme Court was taking liberties with its interpretations, the Chief Justice's spokesperson denied this, State Radio gleefully defended the Chief Justice against the Conservative MP.

Then, it turns out the Chief Justice said this:

"What is going on is the idea that there exist fundamental norms of justice so basic that they form part of the legal structure of governance and must be upheld by the courts, whether or not they find expression in constitutional texts."

Read more here.

I'm sorry. The CBC and the Chief Justice are the ones that look foolish here, at least in the eyes of many Canadians who are tired of these typically partisan Liberal antics. Once the power is gone, the Emperor has no clothes.

[geoffrey]

Thanks for that quote August, really shows the it wasn't a misrepresentation at all.

Well said by Maurice then, nothing wrong with what he said.

Watching more of the CBC coverage today, we even had some NDP strategist saying this was said because of some meeting with secret Republican strategists. Normally I watch CBC before other networks, their views mostly disagree with me and therefore I feel I get more enlightened on others positions, I hate watching TV that agrees with me. But today I couldn't even watch the ridiculous nature of the programming, and its full on hate towards the CPC, making a scandal out of a comment, which now, appears to be completely founded on truth.

[geoffrey]

Further reading of McClachlin's (you were apparently spelling it wrong too August) quotes, I've decided that she should definitely step aside immediately. She's is clearly an activist judge and is very proud of that fact.

Some of the quotes that stood out in my mind:

"...the legitimacy of the modern democratic state arguably depends on its adhesion to fundamental norms that transcend the law and executive action."

"The argument I have been advancing may dispose of the suggestion that ...it is inherently wrong for judges to rely on unwritten constitutional norms, if constitutional is understood here in the sense of an overriding principle that can invalidate laws and executive acts."

"It is sufficient that the law provide a general idea of what kind of result may ensue, and that the result, once established by judicial rulings, be justifiable in terms of what is written on the books and legal convention or usage."

"I conclude that while it is useful to articulate fundamental constitutional norms insofar as we can, the fact that a principle or its application does not take written form does not provide a principled reason for rejecting judicial reliance on it."

--

So instead of relying on written laws and precedent, our Chief Justice firmly believes that its her duty to destroy all laws not in her worldview and modify them to best suit her view of what democracy should be.

A judge's duty is to interpret the written laws passed by government, instead we have a judge that believes her duty is to modify laws that fit her mindset.

Great. Step down Bev, time for you to leave now. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.