Harper trying to muzzle judges

[jdobbin]

It is the judge who hands down the sentence not the defence. The sentence range is there and the judge is responsible for his decision, no one else.

It is the prosecution that often makes plea deals and recommends it to the judge. This isn't limited to judges being weak on crime as the Tories make out. It also isn't limited to one political party. Plea deals are made every day and the sauce that makes them possible is agreement on a recommended sentence from both the Crown and the Defence.

[PolyNewbie]

If Harper sucessfully muzzles judges they may be able to get a terrorism charge to stick. Most of those caeses get thrown out for having no evidence. Harper wants more Zundel trials because he is a neocon.

[Figleaf]

Why is a former retired federal public servant publicly and openly and boldly criticizing Prime Minister Harper as if Harper is somehow interfering with the current sentencing procedure by judges which he is not.

I think Mr. Justice Lamer has every right and every reason to speak up. He's a private citizen now and is free to express his views as he sees fit.

This ex-chief justice should not be saying anything considering the fact mostly ALL federal court judges, have been appointed by Liberal friendly Quebec prime ministers.

It's not the judges' fault that Canadian voters have a traditional preference for Liberal governments.

[Argus]

If Harper sucessfully muzzles judges they may be able to get a terrorism charge to stick. Most of those caeses get thrown out for having no evidence. Harper wants more Zundel trials because he is a neocon.

Don't worry. Your tinfoil hat will protect you.

[Catchme]

The Canadian Judicial Council has warned in a communiqué that it will withdraw from the committees that vet judicial applicants, if the Tories use those committees to stack the courts. (That, at least, is the plain-English translation of the council's guarded prose.)

Such criticism from the bench is extraordinary, so it's hardly surprising that the Liberals demanded in Question Period that the government listen to the judges and stand down.

But Mr. Harper never defends against an attack. Instead, he counterattacks with greater force. Rather than answer the judges' criticism, the Prime Minister alluded to a story in The Vancouver Sun,...There is nothing, nothing Mr. Harper won't do to win.

Ibbitson

[Catchme]

Harper brushes off judicial critics on appointments

CAMPBELL CLARK

OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper dismissed the warning shot fired by Canada's judiciary over the Conservatives' changes to the way judges are appointed, insisting his government won't leave the vetting of judges' qualifications to "a private club of judges and lawyers."

On Tuesday, the body that represents Canada's federally appointed judges, the Canadian Judicial Council, expressed concern that the advisory committees that vet applicants for the bench are no longer independent because members selected by Ottawa now have a majority of votes.

The committees, created in 1988 and designed to take partisan politics out of judicial appointments, vet lawyers to decide if they will be recommended as judges on Canada's superior courts

"Because the majority of voting members are now appointed by the [Justice] Minister, the advisory committees may neither be, nor seen to be, fully independent of the government. This puts in peril the concept of an independent body that advises the government on who is best qualified to be a judge," the council, headed by Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, said in a statement.

"Judicial independence is not the private right of judges but the foundation of judicial impartiality and a constitutional right of all Canadians."

The council also hinted that judges might pull out of the committees if it feels merit is not the criteria for appointments. And it asserted that judges have a duty to deliver decisions they feel are right even if politically unpopular.

"A democratic country is in trouble when the judges warn that the government is putting their independence in peril,"

[Catchme]

Harper is tampering with the judicial system, something which he has NO MANDATE to do, and in the face of the fact that the majority of canadians think the Supreme going is doing just fine.

In fact, more so than they think any leader of political parties is doing. Considering this, Harper's heinous actions in trying to stack it, do not bode well for him.

Most Canadians OK with Supreme Court

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in Canada believe their country’s foremost court is performing properly, according to a poll by SES Research. 53.9 per cent of respondents think the Supreme Court of Canada is moving the country in the right direction.

Angus Reid

[geoffrey]

... something which he has NO MANDATE to do.

What does that mean?

[Argus]

On Tuesday, the body that represents Canada's federally appointed judges, the Canadian Judicial Council, expressed concern that the advisory committees that vet applicants for the bench are no longer independent because members selected by Ottawa now have a majority of votes.

The committees, created in 1988 and designed to take partisan politics out of judicial appointments, vet lawyers to decide if they will be recommended as judges on Canada's superior courts

A democratic country is in trouble when the judges warn that the government is putting their independence in peril,"[/url]

Hmm, created in 1988 eh? And yet, since then, the benches have been stacked with hundreds of Liberal Party faithful, former MPs and cabinet ministers, former failed candidates, former party bagmen and influence peddlers, not to mention lawyers who contribute free legal services to the Liberal party in exchange for their robes.

It would not be unfair to claim that the great majority of the people on the "Canadian Judicial Council" are, if not card carrying Liberals, Liberals in every other meaningful way.

So much for judicial independence.

[southerncomfort]

iLooking at it another way maybe it is nothing more than a power struggle by lawyers et al to keep control over the appointments system. Why on earth should they consist of lawyers and judges only, heck Police depts. have civilian watchdogs, maybe these guys need one too.

Just more Liberal hype over something they have been master of for years you know stacking the benches didn't hear the liberal shills complaining about that. Actually they just want to keep it that way.

.

[Catchme]

... something which he has NO MANDATE to do.

What does that mean?

Harper and the CPC have a slim minority government.

They campaigned on 5 points, none of which have been fulfilled. But yet they are off tinkering with National security and the judicial system.

Do you think they would have gotten even a slim minority if they would've have campaigned on what they are doing? Answer would be NO.

They have absolutely no mandate from Canadians, to do these things and they know so. Which is why they are trying to slither around having to make legislative changes as they know it would never pass through the house. So they are twisting or ignoring legistlation that is in place.

[Wilber]

So bring down the government.

[scribblet]

Harper has as much of a mandate as any government, his first 5 priorities have been addressed or will be in the next budget, (more tax cuts coming) those 5 were only 5 - get that, which do not limit a gov't to do nothing else until another election. Provinces are not willing to work with the feds on wait times, at least Ontario isn't.

Canadians never embrace all promises or issues, not even all the Tories agree 100%. In order to successfully manage and keep a minority government, Harper has to be careful to pick and choose the initiatives and issues they bring forward and when. So far he has done an admirable job.

[geoffrey]

Canadians never embrace all promises or issues, not even all the Tories agree 100%. In order to successfully manage and keep a minority government, Harper has to be careful to pick and choose the initiatives and issues they bring forward and when. So far he has done an admirable job.

By Catchme's standards the Liberals should be held to account for not completely eliminating the GST after 1993, ect. ect..

That's all they should do, only what was in the Red Book, NOTHING else.

Remember, the only government that has EVER had a majority of popular support since the 50's was Mulroney's 1988 government. Chretien had majorities on only 1 or 2% more popular support than Harper, yet apparently he has a mandate, and Harper doesn't.

[Catchme]

Canadians never embrace all promises or issues, not even all the Tories agree 100%. In order to successfully manage and keep a minority government, Harper has to be careful to pick and choose the initiatives and issues they bring forward and when. So far he has done an admirable job.

By Catchme's standards the Liberals should be held to account for not completely eliminating the GST after 1993, ect. ect..

That's all they should do, only what was in the Red Book, NOTHING else.

Remember, the only government that has EVER had a majority of popular support since the 50's was Mulroney's 1988 government. Chretien had majorities on only 1 or 2% more popular support than Harper, yet apparently he has a mandate, and Harper doesn't.

Ummm, its called a majority government, and the Liberal party had the majority popularity.

Our government, is not based on personal popularity in the riding of the leader to denote approval or mandate for the leader. Even though CPC and their supporters, would love for us to have US style single figure at the helm, that is not what we have.

Harper is onmly the leader of the party in power, he was not elected PM.

[Wilber]

The opposition has a majority so stop yapping and bring down the government. I for one disagree, judges don't need muzzling, they need a swift and firm kick in the ass.

[Wilber]

Ummm, its called a majority government, and the Liberal party had the majority popularity.

Our government, is not based on personal popularity in the riding of the leader to denote approval or mandate for the leader. Even though CPC and their supporters, would love for us to have US style single figure at the helm, that is not what we have.

Harper is onmly the leader of the party in power, he was not elected PM.

What hypocracy.

"When they get home, when they get out of Parliament, when they are 50 yards from Parliament Hill, they are no longer honourable members, they are nobodies." PET

[geoffrey]

Ummm, its called a majority government, and the Liberal party had the majority popularity.

Ahh Catchme, yet again, your wrong on a factual point. You've got to start checking these. The Liberals haven't had a popular vote majority since 1940, unlike the Conservatives and PC's which have had two in that time frame by the way.

In fact, Chretien barely had more support than Harper at any time during his reign.

1993 41.24%

1997 38.46%

2000 40.85%

Harper had 36% when elected.

Unfortunately, the Liberals haven't had the mandate you claim they have since Mackenzie King. Pretty brutal hey?

Your argument about mandate is completely invalid.

[hiti]

If Steve gets his way, Canada will turn away from judgments determined by centuries of precedence and 25 years of Constitutional law to reflect, in the Steve's words, his government's law-and-order agenda.

Quote; These controversial changes to judicial advisory bodies are going to remove their all-important independence from government.

The Canadian Judicial Council expressed serious misgivings yesterday about the fact that government appointees will, for the first time in the 19-year existence of judicial advisory committees, form a majority of their members.

The CJC paper notes that the committees were created in 1988 amid widespread pressure to ensure that only highly qualified candidates were appointed to the bench, as well as to ensure that political patronage did not play a role in the appointment process.

In 1994, the complement of each committee was increased from five to seven, and the federal government gave itself the power to appoint three of the members. However, this still left its appointees short of a majority.

Besides changing the structure so that government appointees can swing any vote toward the candidate they favour, the CJC noted yesterday, another change will eliminate a distinction between categories of "highly recommended" and "recommended" candidates.

"This raises questions about whether the most qualified individuals will continue to be identified for appointment," it said.

[geoffrey]

If Steve gets his way, Canada will turn away from judgments determined by centuries of precedence and 25 years of Constitutional law to reflect, in the Steve's words, his government's law-and-order agenda.

False dilemma. Completely devoid of any reason.

[hiti]

If Steve gets his way, Canada will turn away from judgments determined by centuries of precedence and 25 years of Constitutional law to reflect, in the Steve's words, his government's law-and-order agenda.

False dilemma. Completely devoid of any reason.

It has been posted here Steve's words.... where he stood up in QP and said that he wishes to appoint judges who will implement "his" law and order.

You know that was said.

[geoffrey]

No, that's still a false-dilemma.

You can't suggest because Harper wants to appoint judges more favourable to law and order that he wants to undo 25 years of precedence (impossible). There is absolutely no evidence.

Some balance in the judiciary would be nice. Right now, a vast majority are exclusive Liberal donors.

[hiti]

No, that's still a false-dilemma.

You can't suggest because Harper wants to appoint judges more favourable to law and order that he wants to undo 25 years of precedence (impossible). There is absolutely no evidence.

Some balance in the judiciary would be nice. Right now, a vast majority are exclusive Liberal donors.

Read his quote...... he said "his law and order" That is why Harper is still perceived as being scary and having a hidden agenda.

Go back and read the link where Steve has changed the balance of the judiciary selection committee to where the government has the deciding vote. THAT is changing 25 years of precedence.

Our judges, most of them, are in the centre and only interested in applying the law as it is written.

[Wilber]

It has been posted here Steve's words.... where he stood up in QP and said that he wishes to appoint judges who will implement "his" law and order.

Give us a link. Laws are passed by Parliament. I think the reason Harper is getting a lot of support for this is that the public is tired of the judiciary not applying those laws. In other words they are getting damn tired of the "judiciaries" law and order or more to the point, the lack of it.

[Argus]

If Steve gets his way, Canada will turn away from judgments determined by centuries of precedence and 25 years of Constitutional law to reflect, in the Steve's words, his government's law-and-order agenda.

Centuries of precedence were thrown out the window without a second thought when the Charter came in, and I didn't see you liberals sobbing about it.

Even Lamer said he's surprised at how weak sentences are - and he was known as a man who always sided with the criminals and preferred soft sentencing.

The CJC paper notes that the committees were created in 1988 amid widespread pressure to ensure that only highly qualified candidates were appointed to the bench, as well as to ensure that political patronage did not play a role in the appointment process.

What a laugh. It failed miserably on both counts. Judicial appointments were nearly all done for patronage reasons, and competence is not something anyone would consider synonymous with Canadian judges.

"This raises questions about whether the most qualified individuals will continue to be identified for appointment," it said.

I'd really like to see the make-up of the members of the CJC, and how they were appointed. I rather doubt many of them were appointed because they were the most qualified.