An article in today’s Post signed by ten constitutional ‘experts’ from Ontario and Quebec law schools criticized Stephen Harper’s plan to fill 18 vacant Senate seats before Christmas. In it they use weasel-worded bafflegab like "illegitimate context", "dangerously close to being unconstitutional" and "in clear violation of the Canadian constitutional ideals of the rule of law and parliamentary democracy".
While it’s obvious that the circumstances are unusual, what’s "illegitimate" about the "context"? OK, so maybe they don’t like the prorogation but it’s not unconstitutional - at worst, in their own over-heated opinions, just "dangerously close" to it. And what is meant by "constitutional ideals"? Where are these "ideals" articulated such that the eggheads can conclude there’s been a "clear violation"?
It comes off like partisan hyperbolic whinging from a bunch of card-carrying-Liberal academics.