Undermining the division of powers

[Argus]

How ironic, are we supposed to believe that judicial appts. by the Liberals were beyond the realm of partisan politics before the CPC took over.

I am certainly no saying that, nor endorsing Liberal patronage over Tory patronage. But the bad old days of patronage appointments was supposed to be remedied by the relatively recent (Martin government?) implementation of the selection committees.

Which is why the Liberals appointed their own partisans to those committees, right? To make sure there was no patronage?

[Argus]

We've seen provinces where every time a new government is elected, there are many civil servants fired so that the new government can reward their own party faithful. It is disruptive and defeats the professionalism that should be sought where seeking to fill positions.

So the new party should just content itself with the fact that all their senior non-political advisers are party loyalists from the other side of the aisle, right?

I have no doubt that many Liberal lawyers have been promoted to the courts. What I haven't see is a clear aim by past Liberal governments to try and make the court rubber stamp of Liberal policies.

And you don't include the two last appointments to the Supreme Court, both extremely weak, inexperienced judges known chiefly for their strong advocacy and support of homosexual rights might be interpreted in any way as stacking the court?

[madmax]

What is the purpose of the Null Vote.

Either you believe that politics should stay out of the Judiciary or your don't.

This is a poorly worded poll because nobody would vote for believing that Judges should toe the political line.

So then you are down to a 2 question poll

You believe the judiciary should be indepent

or

NULL

This is a problematic poll for myself.

Oh yeah, anyone else want to vote with me.......

[BayLee]

So typical of right wingers.

When their baby is caught doing the same thing they criticized the LIBS of doing all they can basically say is..

" well they did it ,so can we

[jdobbin]

I have no doubt that many Liberal lawyers have been promoted to the courts. What I haven't see is a clear aim by past Liberal governments to try and make the court rubber stamp of Liberal policies. The Feds have had 3 seats on the selection committee. I don't see why they need a fourth. I think the Conservative appointees can make it through the process without stacking things politically.

That sounds reasonable to me.

Which part? That Tory appointees can get appointed without stacking the selection committee?

[jdobbin]

So the new party should just content itself with the fact that all their senior non-political advisers are party loyalists from the other side of the aisle, right?

And you don't include the two last appointments to the Supreme Court, both extremely weak, inexperienced judges known chiefly for their strong advocacy and support of homosexual rights might be interpreted in any way as stacking the court?

I think that the new government has no obligation to continue employing political appointees. What shouldn't happen the government trying to completely politicize the bureaucracy. Harper has said in the past the people who work in the civil service are Liberals.

As far as your claims go on the last Supreme Court appointments, please show me where they lack experience or were appointed because of their homosexual agenda.

[Figleaf]

How ironic, are we supposed to believe that judicial appts. by the Liberals were beyond the realm of partisan politics before the CPC took over.

I am certainly no saying that, nor endorsing Liberal patronage over Tory patronage. But the bad old days of patronage appointments was supposed to be remedied by the relatively recent (Martin government?) implementation of the selection committees.

Which is why the Liberals appointed their own partisans to those committees, right? To make sure there was no patronage?

Didn't the Canadian electorate vote the Liberals out of office last round? So what is it you are hoping to demonstrate by digging up history.

You're just like the Harper Conservatives. Can't quite grasp that the government is them now.

[Figleaf]

What is the purpose of the Null Vote.

I always include that kind of option in a poll.

Either you believe that politics should stay out of the Judiciary or your don't.

This is a poorly worded poll because nobody would vote for believing that Judges should toe the political line.

Except, apparently, the Harper government.

[Argus]

Personally, I think the Harper program on this point is a shocking disgrace.

But you didn't mind when the LIberals were selling judge's robes in exchange for free legal services right?

Or stacking the benches with cronies, party bagmen and failed political candidates.

Or when Martin appointed two poorly qualified people to the supreme court because they were gay rights advocates.

[madmax]

madmax says

This is a poorly worded poll because nobody would vote for believing that Judges should toe the political line.

Except, apparently, the Harper government.

Well, now there are two of us.

DOH!

[Catchme]

Personally, I think the Harper program on this point is a shocking disgrace.

But you didn't mind when the LIberals were selling judge's robes in exchange for free legal services right?

Or stacking the benches with cronies, party bagmen and failed political candidates.

Or when Martin appointed two poorly qualified people to the supreme court because they were gay rights advocates.

Figleaf it is more than a shocking disgrace, and so shows the hypocrisy of Harper.

Argus give examples please, other than that it is just opinion.

[scribblet]

I guess what this really means is that only left-handed court-packing should be allowed :

After what, 14 years the Liberals used the courts to put forward their policies and now they are in shock and awe . How awful, a gov't trying to use the courts to reverse their corrupted process.

[Figleaf]

Personally, I think the Harper program on this point is a shocking disgrace.

But you didn't mind when the LIberals were selling judge's robes in exchange for free legal services right?

Guys, you can't all repeat the same thing over and over again. Of course I minded that, who didn't. Now try to understand: The selection committees were instituted by the Liberals to prevent that kind of abuse from continuing. NOW, by changing the committees in this way, Harper is re-instituting the abuses.

[Argus]

Personally, I think the Harper program on this point is a shocking disgrace.

But you didn't mind when the LIberals were selling judge's robes in exchange for free legal services right?

Guys, you can't all repeat the same thing over and over again. Of course I minded that, who didn't.

And how many times did you complain about your shock and outrage? How many times did the Globe complain about its shock and outrage? Apparently none. Apparently not once in thirteen years did the Globe ever find it necessary to editorialize on Liberal bench stacking.

And I'm guessing, neither did you.

Now try to understand: The selection committees were instituted by the Liberals to prevent that kind of abuse from continuing.

Oh grow up. The Liberals instituted these committees to keep themselves from abusing the process? They instituted them as a way of masking their abuse of the process, and promptly stacked them with partisans.

And btw, why is nobody outraged about those seven judges currently sitting, who bought their robes? Why don't we have their names and the names of the MPS who got free services from them? Why is there no investigation leading to booting them off the courts?

[FTA Lawyer]

I think everyone is loosing their marbles over this issue for no good reason.

The number I have seen is that 60% of judges appointed during the Liberal government were Liberal supporters. Hardly a significant bias if you ask me. If it were 80%, then I'd have to wonder if the best qualified were getting the job as opposed to the best connected.

Common sense dictates that as between two similarly qualified candidates the reigning government of the day will appoint their supporters. The notiton of partisan appointments should only be concerning if unqualified people are getting the nod.

And I've seen very little evidence from anyone to suggest that unqualified people are getting appointments.

Of course, there will rarely, if ever, be complete agreement on the quality of any appointment...and once in a while an eyebrow or too will legitimately be raised when a particular person gets a seat on the bench, but I don't think there is any massive systemic impropriety going on here.

Let me put it this way, I never hear any of my colleagues leaving a courtroom having lost a case saying, "f--king Cretien / Mulroney appointment!" And Alberta is a good case study...since provincially we have had 100% Conservative rule throughout the entire past federal Liberal regime.

If this issue was such an actual problem, then all Provincial Court judges (Conservative appointments) would hate the Charter, not respect human rights, and throw everyone in jail while the Queen's Bench and Appeal judges (Liberal appointments) gave everyone a "slap on the wrist" and hugged them while chanting "Trudeau, Trudeau, Tredeau!"

This just doesn't happen.

In fact, the Alberta Court of Appeal is one of the most conservative-minded, tough on crime courts in the country in spite of 13 years of Liberal government appointments.

At the end of the day, if I'm not seeing incompetent or political decision making in the courtrooms, then I'm really disinterested in all of the mud-slinging over people who have donated to a party being given the appointment...no matter which party is in power at the time.

FTA

[Figleaf]

And how many times did you complain about your shock and outrage?

I only started posting here after the committees had been instituted.

How many times did the Globe complain about its shock and outrage? Apparently none.

So what?

Now try to understand: The selection committees were instituted by the Liberals to prevent that kind of abuse from continuing.

Oh grow up. The Liberals instituted these committees to keep themselves from abusing the process?

Yes.

[B. Max]

Personally, I think the Harper program on this point is a shocking disgrace.

Maybe we can finally get rid of the activist judges that the Liberals stacked the courts with.

[Argus]

I think everyone is loosing their marbles over this issue for no good reason.

The number I have seen is that 60% of judges appointed during the Liberal government were Liberal supporters.

Not quite. It was that it has been proven that 60% donated money to the Liberal party.

We do not know what percentage of the remainder were Liberal supporters or friends or old party bag men or failed candidates. But I'm guessing it was not 0%

[Figleaf]

Personally, I think the Harper program on this point is a shocking disgrace.

Maybe we can finally get rid of the activist judges that the Liberals stacked the courts with.

What bumf. The Liberals didn't choose judges for their "activism". How could they, since it's a meaningless concept.

[scribblet]

Bumf indeed, much ado over nothing, an artificial scandal indeed.

Exactly what has happened. He hasn't appointed a whole raft of new judges with 'close ties to the Conservative party' but it wouldn't be hard to think that from the headines and Liberal shreiking.

What the CPC has actually done is to appoint 33 new members to the 12 judicial advisory councils which advice and inform Ottawa on who would make acceptable judges. Only 16 people actually had some connection to the CPC.

This hardly amounts to "stacking the courts," these are volunteers appointed to a committee which will only recommend - talk about blowing in the wind.