Saturday, May 16, 2015

An absurd response to an absurd Supreme Court ruling

Canada's legal education system is producing a surplus of bozos and nitwits (aka liberals).  They are everywhere, most notably even on the Supreme Court.  Dimmer bulbs settle for serving as counsel to cities.  The Richmond Hill city council's legal team, taking an absurd Supreme Court ruling to an even more absurd extreme, appear not to have read even the first sentence of our constitution:



"Liberal" idiocy is out of control! We're doomed!


16 comments:

Pissedoff said...

SCC = Stupid Court of Canada.

Nine unelected lefties in santa claus suits.

Alain said...

The only thing I could add to Pissedoff's comments is thanks to the late Trudeau these judicial activists are now legislating instead of Parliament and instead of interpreting the laws passed by the elected government. In view of this it is unacceptable that the federal government refuses to use the not withstanding clause every time, the SCC pulls this crap.

johndoe124 said...

I kind of like the idea that our Constitution could be unconstitutional. It's a piece of crap anyway.

JR said...

And the astounding thing is how many people have bought into this crap and how our universities continue to push it. Soon it'll be part of the "social justice" curriculum for K - 12, if it isn't already - right along side "studies" in the evils of global warming perpetrated by the West.

This doesn't bode well for the future of Western civilization.

Anonymous said...

Well all we can do is wait until Stephen Harper can appoint some judges.

Oh wait, he's appointed 8 of them.

Anonymous said...

This is Harper's court. Harper has shown extremely poor judgment in his appointments. Judge, senators, cabinet ministers all are dishonest or incompetent.

Anonymous said...

I always find it amusing when leftist nit-wits who are too dishonest and cowardly to admit that they're just Marxists hell bent on destruction hiding behind designations like "liberal"(anti-liberal) or "progressive" (fascist)employing the absurd excuse that the Supreme court was appointed by PM Harper, like that has something to do with why these "judges" are activist political ideologues. The Supreme court is ass full of radical social engineering "progressive" ideologues disguised as impartial judges using and abusing the positions of power the imposed Trudeau Charter bestows on them to slowly, deliberately and undemocratically destroy and undermine the principles this country was founded upon, and like the Trudeau Charter itself, without consent from the citizens. What difference would it make who PM Harper appoints to this activist undemocratic body of Trudeaupian Charter interpreters? The problem is not whom PM Harper "appoints" to the Trudeau Court of social justice warriors and activists, that appointment aspect is barely relevant, the problem and danger of course is contained within the undemocratic nature of the imposed Trudeau Charter and how it vandalizes and distorts the very priciples this country was founded upon. The imposed Trudeau Charter is the problem, not the PM 's appointment of "interpreters".

JR said...

Anonymous (10:18:00 PM PDT),
Exactly so. The people qualified for appointment by any PM have all been produced by a system and process that overwhelmingly lean to "progressive". I don't know whether Harper's recent attempted appointee (Nadon) would have turned out be any less progressive, but the fact that his appointment was rejected by the Supremes on a weak technicality says volumes. So even the Supreme Court itself is an obstacle to getting conservatives appointed to the SC bench.

Harper may have appointed most of them, but it's a low odds crap-shoot that any will actually be conservative.

"Harper's court" - my arse.

Anonymous said...

JR, you are in weird denial. There are tens of thousands of lawyers in Canada eligible to be judges. Harper vets hundreds of Judges and makes his selection. This is Harper's court. The fact that that his appointees strike down so many of Harper's laws should tell you that Harper routinely violates the Constitution. He always spins his losses by saying the court is "activist". A small percentage of hyper-partisans accept this without thought. The rest of Canadians see Harper as a disgrace.

Alain said...

@ anon at 4:39 PM. You are the one in denial concerning the problem being Trudeau extending the power of the court including replacing the job of Parliament. Without this it would not really matter how "progressive" appointees are, since their mandate was clear just as their limits were clear. Where I fault the PM, like others before him, is to invoke the not withstanding clause every time the court tries to legislate in lieu of Parliament.

JR said...

anon at 4:39 PM,

You inhabit some weird theoretical never-land that doesn't exist in the real world.

"Harper" doesn't do any "vetting", much less "tens of thousands" of eligible lawyers. While in theory he may have the power to do so, it would be politically untenable. A process of consultation and recommendation has evolved over the years and previous PM's. Here's how "Harper" picked the last one(s):

To identify a pool of qualified candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada consulted with the Attorney General of Québec, the Chief Justice of Québec, the Chief Justice of the Quebéc Superior Court, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Appeal, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, as well as representatives of prominent legal organizations, including the Barreau du Québec and the Canadian Bar Association.

A long-list of qualified candidates was reviewed by a selection panel made up of five Members of Parliament – three members from the Government caucus and one member from each of the recognized Opposition caucuses, as selected by their respective leaders.

The Supreme Court of Canada Appointments Selection Panel was responsible for assessing the long-listed candidates and providing an unranked list of three qualified and recommended candidates to the Prime Minister of Canada and to the Minister of Justice for their consideration.

The nominee, who was selected from this short-list of three, will appear at a public hearing of an ad hoc committee of parliamentarians to answer questions from Members of Parliament.


This process plus reasons given in my previous comment, the odds of actual achieving the appointment of a conservative are low. Out of nine justices few will be "conservative" at any given time.

Alain said...

Well I am guilty of not proof reading before posting. My second comment should have said that I fault the PM and the others before him for NOT involving the NWC every time the court tries to legislate. Sorry.

Anonymous said...

The fact that PM Harper appointed the majority of "judges" (interpreters) to the Trudeau Court is not the kryptonite "progressives" (fascists) think it is... in fact its barely relevant. It was the imposition of the Trudeau Charter that distorted the relationship between the elected Parliament and the unelected judiciary. The imposition of the Trudeau Charter was the guarantee that the unaccountable appointed judiciary would be deliberately transformed from dealing with matters of the Common law to a powerful body of political operatives. To blame PM Harper for appointing "the wrong judges" is to willfully ignore the fundamental problem that lies not in the appointment process (which is flawed) but in the deliberately undemocratic imposition of the Trudeau Charter and the dangerous vandalization that Canadas institutions have suffered as a consequence. It is the powers granted to the Supreme Court through the imposition of the Trudeau Charter that is the problem.

Anonymous said...

I fully support the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and while sometimes we may get rulings we don't like, I believe it is important to have it as a check and balance otherwise there is little holding back the government from doing whatever it wants. And also they are certain inalienable rights that people have and popularity should not be allowed to take away those rights. After all most supported slavery in the 1800s in the Southern US, most in Germany in the 30s support anti-semitic laws but that doesn't make them justifiable. Charter is there to protect individual Canadians from abuse from the state.

Besides if you think the Charter is too leftist, it can be amended, all it requires is 7 out of 10 provinces with over 50% of the population. The problem is I don't think any province would agree to this. Never mind when the Charter was signed off by 9 provincial governments (Quebec didn't), they had governments of all political stripes.

As for Khadr, I think the decision to release or not release him should be based on public safety. We've moved beyond the idea of sentencing based on retribution and instead only keep people behind bars if they are a threat to public safety. Since all the evidence I've seen suggests he isn't a threat, I therefore think he should be released. As a fiscal conservative, I would rather a former criminal or child soldier become a hard working contributing citizen who contributes to the tax base, not someone locked up which costs taxpayer's more money.

Anonymous said...

Interesting that the far left "progressive" above refers to himself or herself as a "fiscal conservative", funny stuff. Its also hilarious and incredibly ignorant when "progressives" declare Canadians didn't have any "rights@freedoms" before 1982 when somehow the imposition of the Trudeau Charter saved us all from the tyranny of Parliamentary democracy. Canadians already had "individual rights" before Trudeau imposed his Charter, and in fact the Trudeau Charter limits individual rights, it is a document of "group rights", the rights of the individual are arbitrary under the Trudeau Charter (Russell Township ruling) It's beyond ridiculous, and in fact entirely absurd to suggest the Trudeau Charter is why Canada doesn't have slavery or why Canada isn't a Nazi state, just absurd and beyond ridiculous. Canadians had "rights and freedoms" long before Trudeau imposed his Charter in 1982, to suggest otherwise is frankly dishonest to the point of complete ignorance. It also misses the point entirely when one is incapable of understanding the fundamental and profound changes the imposed Trudeau Charter has had on the very principles and guidelines the country was founded upon. If one doesn't understand the difference between a Parliamentary democracy pre Trudeau Charter and an Oligarchical State after the imposition of the Trudeau Charter than they should simply be quiet.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 5:28 PM PDT - It's true we had rights before the Charter but it was much easier to trample on them such as the bathhouse raids, residential schools, sterilizing mentally handicapped people until the 70s in Alberta are all things that would have been prohibited had the Charter existed. Also in the past Canada was always run by Progressive Conservatives (my former party) or Liberals, never by hard right neo-conservatives who far too many in the current Conservative party come from who are hostile to minority rights and traditionally disadvantaged people. As for individual rights vs. group rights, the Charter found a compromise as at the time you had provincial governments of a variety of ideology. More importantly Canada whether people like it or not is a centre-left country and in many ways the Charter reflected that.

The Charter is not infallible rather it acts as a check on governments. If the Harper government dislikes some of the rulings it can always invoke the notwithstanding clause (which Trudeau opposed but Lougheed and other premiers insisted be included), but they won't do that because they know most Canadians oppose it. Likewise with 7 out of 10 provinces with over 50% of the population the Charter can be amended, but again the majority in every province support the Charter. In fact it is the Charter that allows people like yourself to mouth off views that run contrary to views the vast majority of Canadians hold and to spout them off without sanction, this is despite the majority of Canadians would like it if our country had no hard right types at all.