Closer Anglosphere Alignment needed

[mcqueen625]

Quote: "America's Bill of rights is not 'granted' or needed here. Oddly, the Canadians most likely to seek tighter ties with the Bushblairosphere seem to really hate our own Charter of Rights." End of Quote

It not so much ties to Bush but to Americans, because they are friends, relatives and neighbours, and our largest trading partner. As for OUR Charter of Rights, it is the worst thing that Canada has ever adopted through legislation, because it is fundamentally a flawed document, because it confers onto even terrorists rights that they should not have. It confers onto criminals more rights than it does to their victims, and that is wrong. It confers onto a bunch a appointed, unaccountable party hack lawyers, judgeships that places them basically above our elected officials, that makes us no longer a democratic country when we have these baffoons being able to tells our elected politicians how our laws are to read according to their own personal biases.

Most countries who have a Charter or Constitution, the people have input into it's creation and a vote on it's implementation, and neither of those scenarios happened in Canada, This flawed document was simply imposed onto the people of Canada without any kind of vote, and as the previous two Liberal PM's have indicated, they were quite willing to allow this appointed, unaccountable judiciary to be "The final word in this country," and that is hardly democracy in action, it is instead a dictatorship. The only way of rectifying this situation is to have our judiciary elected to specific terms in office, and then and only then will Canadian's concerns be taken into consideration when some of these off-the-wall decisions are made. The way it now stands under the Charter the judiciary is virtually above the law.

[jbg]

The only way of rectifying this situation is to have our judiciary elected to specific terms in office, and then and only then will Canadian's concerns be taken into consideration when some of these off-the-wall decisions are made. The way it now stands under the Charter the judiciary is virtually above the law.

In the US, President Jackson, defied the order of the US Supreme Court to stand settlers down and to stop them from forcing the Cherokees onto distant reservations in modern-day Oklahoma. "President Jackson, when hearing of the Court's decision, reportedly said,'(Chief Justice) John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can.'"(link)

That episode cost the Court dearly in terms of prestige, a blow from which it only slowly recovered. Now, the maxim in the US is "the Court follows the election returns". The Court clearly got the message inasmuch as in 1954, when the Court ordered integration of public schools, it required that the states desegregate "with all deliberate speed". That oxymoron spared the country a bloodbath.

The message should be delivered that certain SCOC decisions may be so "over the top" that they won't be obeyed.

[Charles Anthony]

The message should be delivered that certain SCOC decisions may be so "over the top" that they won't be obeyed.

Sounds like chaos.

It also sounds like the bigger the jurisdiction, the more chaos it will be.

[jbg]

The message should be delivered that certain SCOC decisions may be so "over the top" that they won't be obeyed.

Sounds like chaos.

It also sounds like the bigger the jurisdiction, the more chaos it will be.

It wasn't chaos. It was setting boundaries for political decisions that the Court did not have any right to make.

[ft.niagara]

It wasn't chaos. It was setting boundaries for political decisions that the Court did not have any right to make.

Since we are on the topic of the SC and courts and judges, one of my beefs is the "litmus test" for judges in their confirmation, shopping for judges, and legislating from the bench. All these practices seem to be typical of the Democratic Party and the ACLU and like organizations. Kennedy is the new swing voter on the court, otherwise, their votes are very predictable.

[jbg]

It wasn't chaos. It was setting boundaries for political decisions that the Court did not have any right to make.

Since we are on the topic of the SC and courts and judges, one of my beefs is the "litmus test" for judges in their confirmation, shopping for judges, and legislating from the bench. All these practices seem to be typical of the Democratic Party and the ACLU and like organizations. Kennedy is the new swing voter on the court, otherwise, their votes are very predictable.

Since the appointments are for life, the justices often wind up surprising their appointers. Just ask Reagan (if he were alive) about O'Connor & Souter.