PM says he'll pick judges by ideology

[hiti]

Jim Brown

Canadian press

OTTAWA — Steven Harper is frankly admitting that he’s looking for judges who will back his law-and-order agenda — and provoking cries from his opponents that he’s trying to subvert the judiciary for political ends.

“We are bringing forward laws to make sure that we crack down on crime — that we make our streets and communities safer,” the prime minister declared in the Commons on Wednesday.

“We want to make sure our selection of judges is in correspondence with those objectives.”

Harper quickly retreated from those blunt remarks, delivered during the third straight day of heated debate over Conservative views on the judiciary, the courts and the Charter of Rights.

For the rest of the daily question period, he deflected opposition barbs by insisting that he believes in an independent judiciary and merit-based appointments to the bench.

It was too late, however, to still the wrath of his critics in both the political and legal spheres.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/181890

Harper's hubris could soon backfire

By James Travers

Toronto Star

Ottawa (Feb 15, 2007)

Something strange and troubling is happening in the national capital. A minority government behaving like a majority is creating an alternate universe where weak is strong and the will of Parliament is merely a suggestion.

What's more worrying than the government's environmental sincerity is its default character. It's so cock-sure, so blinded-by the beauty of its convictions, that it bowls over anything in its way.

Woven through its declared willingness to ride-roughshod over Parliament is the same single-minded determination that's driving its attempts to add partisanship and ideology to the appointment of judges. Both are risky steps in the wrong direction.

Administrations don't necessarily abide by the spirit let alone the letter of every bit of legislation, particularly when not considered as a test of confidence in the government. But diminishing elected MPs to advisers only slows overdue democratic reform even as it accelerates the already high-speed concentration of power at the political centre.

Reversing the trend away from a politicized appointment process by loading the screening committee is as damaging as what it's doing to Parliament. Along with raising the U.S. spectre of mixing personal beliefs with legal competence, it erodes public confidence in an independent judiciary.

http://tinyurl.com/278yh5

Harper admits he's picking judges to advance Tory law-and-order aims

OTTAWA (CP) - Steven Harper is frankly admitting that he's looking for judges who will back his law-and-order agenda - and provoking cries from his opponents that he's trying to subvert the judiciary for political ends.

"We are bringing forward laws to make sure that we crack down on crime - that we make our streets and communities safer," the prime minister declared in the Commons on Wednesday.

"We want to make sure our selection of judges is in correspondence with those objectives."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20070215/ca...c_harper_judges

So today we had a peek at what the "scary" is about. Steve dropped his mask for a moment and let his true intention with judges show. Who is going to kick Steve's butt? His MPs and Caucus are kool-aid drinkers so it is left to the voter to tell this dictator what Canadians think of anyone trying to dismantle our country and changing it in his own image. Canada is not Bush country and our government is not a republic. We are not a neo-con country.

[geoffrey]

Thread already started: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....opic=8084&st=15

[BayLee]

Thread already started:

So what.

Some people may have missed it there and an important topic like this needs to be seen

[geoffrey]

So what.

Some people may have missed it there and an important topic like this needs to be seen

It's your second violation of the forum rules that I've found in the last 15 minutes. It's time to play by the rules now.

[Drea]

Thanks for posting this BayLee. I would not have gone onto the other thread at all as the title didn't properly represent what the thread was about.

I have question == perhaps one of our resident lawyers can answer...

Are criminal judges the same judges who "make up" our statutes?

If so, bad bad Harper. Smack him on the nose with a rolled up newspaper!

;-)

[madmax]

So what.

Some people may have missed it there and an important topic like this needs to be seen

These forums have rules. They are here for a reason. They are not arbitrary. Many have to do with the function of the forum, its maintenance and bandwidth as well as repectful discussion.

People here are active/intelligent and will be able to find the information in the thread.

When I first started using these threads, I made a number of errors that required warnings. I corrected my actions.

Do not respond to such warnings or support others breaking these rules with words such as "SO WHAT"

Show respect for the administrator and the other users of the forum and you will receive respect.