• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Politics in 2014

Status
Not open for further replies.
E.R. Campbell said:
More, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, on the PM vs CJ thing:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/harper-wades-into-uncharted-territory-in-spat-with-chief-justice/article18413672/#dashboard/follows/

This, fighting, publicly, with the Chief Justice, is a dangerous thing, in my opinion. Like Prof Macfarlane, I cannot see the upside of it all.

Unusual in Canada perhaps but not so unusual in Britain (King / PM vs Lord Chamberlain or Lord Chief Justice - not to mention judges in general), or the US, or Australia. 

Another complicating factor, in my opinion, is that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is also the defacto deputy to the Governor-General and thus the Prime-Minister's boss when the G-G is unavailable.  Another remnant of the British North America Act, and earlier colonial governance models.

I agree that it is dangerous to challenge institutions - and I also agree that it is not good practice to challenge them on political or other trivial grounds.

That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be held to account - and after a string of 6 consecutive decisions one might be encouraged to discern a pattern.

As to the source of the people on the court - The Prime Minister gets a list of applicants from the very institutions to which they are to be appointed.  The Bar is self-governing.  He is effectively offered Hobson's Choice.  The one time he challenged that limitation (Nadon) he was denied that option as well.

Which raises an interesting point about what type of Senate one might get if the same rules were applied to the selection of Senators as has been suggested by some.  The risk of entrenching the Laurentian Consensus would appear to be high.

The Amending Formula virtually entrenches power east of the Lakehead until the population shifts West or Ontario starts acting like a Western Province. Nunavut, Yukon and the NW Territories are all denied the same representation as Prince Edward Island.

 
Kirkhill said:
Unusual in Canada perhaps but not so unusual in Britain (King / PM vs Lord Chamberlain or Lord Chief Justice - not to mention judges in general), or the US, or Australia.  Agreed!

... and after a string of 6 consecutive decisions one might be encouraged to discern a pattern.
...


I think the pattern is a message. Prime Minister Harper hired respected, retired SC Justice Ian Binnie to give him a liberal, modern, 21st century interpretation: an interpretation consistent with Prime Minister Harper's general view on the Constitution. The Supremes gave him a very conservative, traditional, deferential interpretation, deferential to the very idea of federalism. I think the message is that a liberal, modern PM, like Harper, will face a conservative, traditional court ... just as Jean Chrétien consistently faced a liberal court that was willing to stretch the law beyond his (and his party's) very conservative interpretations.


(Of course I'm using liberal and conservative correctly, not the way those terms are commonly (incorrectly) used.)
 
Crispy Bacon said:
1. It plays great into the conservative base, who has long known that the courts are often packed with social justice zealots.

2. It plays great into any Canadian who's concerned about who runs Canada. Canadians elected the Conservative government to lead Canada. They have tried to lead Canada and implement their agenda and been rejected 5 times in the last 6 weeks.  Who is the Supreme Court to overrule the will of the Canadian public?

Canadians elected the Conservatives to govern according to our constitution. The fact that the Supreme Court has denied the Gov't 5 times in 6 weeks does not suggest, to me, that the Supreme Court is trying to govern Canada. It suggests to me that the Conservative gov't is trying to govern outside of it's authority which has been granted by the constitution.

The remedy for the Conservatives is available. If they don't like the constitution, they can try and have it amended. A hard thing to achieve, but it's supposed to be hard to achieve for a damn good reason.

I have no problems with the Conservatives pushing the envelope on what they are allowed to do, that's part of their job. I also have no problems with the Supreme Court holding that line, that's part of their job.

One thing I do know, I do not want our Supreme Court to become like the American Supreme Court, where the judges are affiliated with "x" party and their opinions are as biased as their political affiliations.
 
But ballz, their opinions are biased. 

That isn't a slight or a slam.  It is a statement of fact.  There is nobody out there that doesn't have biases.  While I don't want party-affiliated judges (because, as ERC and Humpty Dumpty keep pointing out, ""When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." and therefore labels are not particularly useful in helping me discern bias) I would prefer that judges own up to their bias prior to me letting them act as arbiters and arbitrarily arbitrate at arbitrations over arbeiters. (Arbeiters might be a stretch too far.)

The problem for me is that Judges ultimately are supposed to be deciders.  They do the Solomon thing and make decisions when nobody else can and when a toss of the coin is perhaps a bit trivial - although cheaper, quicker, probably more effective and generally less damaging to the fabric of society.

Maybe we need a new position in the Canadian hierarchy.  Someone who is paid to toss an approved coin.  We could even call him Tosser-in-Chief.
 
Of course everyone has biases, but a Judge is paid to read the black and white and decipher it as best they can, not to apply their opinion. I don't understand constitutional law as well as I'd like, and I realize that the black and white may become grey sometimes and so one's biases may affect the way they decipher it, but I trust them to remain as impartial and as dispassionate as they can. We have 9 judges on the Supreme Court of Canada for those times when black and white become blurred.

I do *not* trust a legislator to be impartial or dispassionate, nor would I want them to be.

There seems to be a few people calling into question whether the Supreme Court of Canada is biased. While individuals may be, I do not believe the Judiciary branch is biased. I do not believe there is an active attempt to thwart the CPC's efforts. To be shot down 5 times in 6 weeks is much more indicative (to me) that the CPC is actively trying to act outside their arcs.
 
ballz said:
Of course everyone has biases, but a Judge is paid to read the black and white and decipher it as best they can, not to apply their opinion. I don't understand constitutional law as well as I'd like, and I realize that the black and white may become grey sometimes and so one's biases may affect the way they decipher it, but I trust them to remain as impartial and as dispassionate as they can. We have 9 judges on the Supreme Court of Canada for those times when black and white become blurred.

I do *not* trust a legislator to be impartial or dispassionate, nor would I want them to be.

There seems to be a few people calling into question whether the Supreme Court of Canada is biased. While individuals may be, I do not believe the Judiciary branch is biased. I do not believe there is an active attempt to thwart the CPC's efforts. To be shot down 5 times in 6 weeks is much more indicative (to me) that the CPC is actively trying to act outside their arcs.

I don't think it is necessary to assume that either party is INTENTIONALLY trying to thwart the other for the sake of the thwarting.  I think that the pattern of call and response can be equally indicative of honestly held differences. 
 
ballz said:
Of course everyone has biases, but a Judge is paid to read the black and white and decipher it as best they can, not to apply their opinion. I don't understand constitutional law as well as I'd like, and I realize that the black and white may become grey sometimes and so one's biases may affect the way they decipher it, but I trust them to remain as impartial and as dispassionate as they can. We have 9 judges on the Supreme Court of Canada for those times when black and white become blurred.

I do *not* trust a legislator to be impartial or dispassionate, nor would I want them to be.

There seems to be a few people calling into question whether the Supreme Court of Canada is biased. While individuals may be, I do not believe the Judiciary branch is biased. I do not believe there is an active attempt to thwart the CPC's efforts. To be shot down 5 times in 6 weeks is much more indicative (to me) that the CPC is actively trying to act outside their arcs.

Can you let us know where you bought those rose coloured glasses?
 
Kirkhill said:
I don't think it is necessary to assume that either party is INTENTIONALLY trying to thwart the other for the sake of the thwarting.  I think that the pattern of call and response can be equally indicative of honestly held differences.

100%. I'm not advocating the CPC is trying to dismantle the SCC and create their own dictatorship, just responding to the idea that the SCC judges have collectively decided to govern the country and write their own laws.

recceguy said:
Can you let us know where you bought those rose coloured glasses?

Not every time a less than spectacular view of the Conservatives comes to light is because there is some sort of agenda against them. It is inconvenient, but I try to keep it real.
 
I am guessing (maybe just hoping?) that the PMO is trying to dampen down this dispute rather than, as the Globe and Mail suggests, "snubbing" the Canadian Bar Association.

The article, citing an expert, suggests that "the Chief Justice made a minor error by trying to contact the Prime Minister after she was consulted by the committee responsible for selecting the next Supreme Court justice," and, of course, the PMO tried to exploit that - most likely for narrow, temporary, partisan, political advantage: a lot of conservative Conservatives don't much like judges, especially not top court judges who thwart some of their attacks on our social system. Maybe (I hope) the PMO understands that it has done all the damage it can, and it is time to move on.


 
The majority of the Supremes were appointed by Harper himself. 5 of 9. Chief Justice was appointed by Mulroney. One was appointed by Chretien and one by Martin. One spot is empty.

If Harper's hand picked judges didn't support him clearly he screwed up.
 
They're not supposed to support him, so perhaps he didn't screw up.
 
The problem is always deferring to the Supreme Court.  The Senate question was sent to the Supreme Court by the PM.  There is nothing wrong with that.  They believed that they could change certain aspects of the Seante without having to go to the provinces.  Their experts (including former SCJs), likely paid a hefty sum, agreed that they had a case.  There is nothing wrong with any of this.

But we have a system that already exists, as was stated, with good reason.  The PM does not want to use that system.  I get it.  It will cause issues to use that system, so that decision is not a bad one. 

The PMO started this bunfight which is totally innapropriate (that is where the screw up began).  Maybe they thought the CJSC would just stay quiet and not respond.  I just find it unfortunate that the PMO chooses to go after respected and qualified people like the Chief Justice, the PBO, the Chief Electoral Officer and a former Auditor General (likely the most respected of all of them) over what amounts to sour grapes and not actual issues. 

Maybe, if they actually listend to some of them, they wouldn't have bills overturned and found unconstitutional or appointments revoked (or worse turned into scandal).

The CPC does have some things to offer but should try and use the system sometimes to get those done instead of going around it or straight up ram through it.

As a side note: it looks like, by picking this fight with the CJSC, the PMO has managed to create another story where there should not have been one.

@Nemo888: Maybe the fact Harper chose 5 of the 9 Supremes, and that most voted against the government's position shows that he actually made good appointments.  Hardly a screw up in my view.  And asking the Supreme Court for a ruling on what they wanted to do with Senate BEFORE actually doing it isn't screwing up either.  That is good governing in my view.  Attacking the Chief Justice because you didn't get the answer you wanted is childish and is indeed a screw up though. 
 
Here, reproduced, without comment, under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is the Laurentian elites' opinion on the Harper vs Supremes fiasco provided by one of the Laurentian elites' main champions, Jeffrey Simpson:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/tories-sink-to-a-new-supreme/article18498810/#dashboard/follows/
gam-masthead.png

Attacking the Supreme Court, the Conservatives sink to a new low

JEFFREY SIMPSON
The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, May. 07 2014

When 11 former presidents of the Canadian Bar Association rebuke the government for attacking Canada’s top jurist, it is fair to ask: How low can Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government go? The answer is that just when you think new depths of conduct have been plumbed, even lower ones are found.

We might have thought that the depths were recently reached by Pierre Poilievre, the minister responsible for the so-called Fair Elections Act, when he attacked the Chief Electoral Officer, dismissed comments from former auditor-general Sheila Fraser and a long list of political scientists who opposed the bill, which has since been amended.

Canadians, however, had not seen the worst. Mr. Harper, in one of his Nixonian moments in which he sees enemies everywhere, impugned the integrity of Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Eleven former presidents of the Canadian Bar Association felt so strongly about the Prime Minister’s unjustified and unprovoked assault on the Chief Justice’s integrity that they collectively came to her defence – and that of the Supreme Court – in The Globe and Mail.

Governments have sometimes been mad at the Supreme Court. They have occasionally vented their frustration at particular decisions. But never has a prime minister suggested inappropriate behaviour by a chief justice, casting a pall over the entire court in the process.

Mr. Harper suggested (wrongly) that Chief Justice McLachlin had tried to contact him about a case before the court. His office spun the story to imply that only the intervention of Justice Minister Peter MacKay and the Prime Minister’s good sense prevented an improper conversation.

If such a conversation had happened, explanations would indeed have been in order. But it didn’t.

Chief Justice McLachlin explained that she had been consulted, as was normal, about a forthcoming appointment. She flagged that a problem might arise should a member of the Federal Court or Federal Court of Appeal be appointed from Quebec, given that the Supreme Court Act might not allow an appointment from that court.

When she spoke to the government, no one knew that a case involving the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon from the Federal Court of Appeal would land before the Supreme Court. To suggest, as the Prime Minister did (and as Mr. MacKay repeated in the Commons this week), that Chief Justice McLachlin wanted to talk about a case no one knew would ever come before her was false, malicious and politically motivated.

Attacking the integrity of the Chief Justice is a very serious matter, an attack without precedent in Canadian history. It shows a Prime Minister furious at the Supreme Court, angry at obstacles put in the way of his exercise of power, willing to misrepresent facts and lash out at one of the country’s most respected persons, who just happened to infuriate him in the exercise of her duties.

As prime minister, Pierre Trudeau was angry at the Supreme Court’s ruling on his efforts to patriate the Constitution. Brian Mulroney’s government did not like some of its rulings on prostitution laws and aboriginal rights. Mr. Harper’s government lost the argument about establishing Ottawa’s constitutional right to create a national securities regulator. Governments have sometimes been annoyed or angry with court rulings, but they have never impugned the chief justice’s integrity.

By attacking Chief Justice McLachlin and adding the Supreme Court of Canada to its enemies list, the government is sending a signal to its political base, MPs, candidates and fundraisers that it is now open season on the courts.

In recent months, the government lost five straight decisions at the Supreme Court on criminal law, the eligibility of Justice Nadon and Ottawa’s right to unilaterally change the Senate.

What must especially gall Mr. Harper is that he appointed a majority of the court’s current judges. He cannot attack “Liberal” or “liberal” judges. He can only attempt to question the integrity of the Chief Justice, thereby encouraging his troops to attack the Supreme Court and other courts that strike down or modify his policies.

This kind of attack has been a staple of Republican Party tactics in the United States. Canadian courts had been spared – but no longer.

 
Little ghetto dogs with a bone. They won't let it go, and when it appears it's not getting the attention they think it deserves, they ramp up the inflammatory rhetoric.

Good old Mop & Pail, self righteous indignation at its finest. ::)
 
recceguy said:
Little ghetto dogs with a bone. They won't let it go, and when it appears it's not getting the attention they think it deserves, they ramp up the inflammatory rhetoric.

Good old Mop & Pail, self righteous indignation at its finest. ::)

Unfortunately, for some inexplicable reason, the PMO and the government seem to be the ones keeping this story going.  When you throw the ghetto dogs more bones they tend to stick around.
 
Crantor said:
Unfortunately, for some inexplicable reason, the PMO and the government seem to be the ones keeping this story going.  When you throw the ghetto dogs more bones they tend to stick around.
It's not inexplicable in the least.  Regardless of political stripe, it seems that just about everyone in public life seems to react to anything that challenges their actions or views by "doubling down" to avoid actually admitting a mistake.  Sometimes even the double down gets doubled down and things start to veer off into some bizarre territory that ends up being even more damaging than simply admitting the fault.
 
And Justin Trudeau explains to Albertans that Stepheh Harper is to blame for the delays to the Keystone XL pipeline because, in his own words, "this [Harper's] government has not done a credible job on demonstrating it is serious about climate change, and it is serious about protecting our environment.”

Of course that's it, US domestic politics and President Obama's search for a legacy have nothing to do with it ...

tumblr_m644llLyWk1rwcc6bo1_250.gif
 
This from the PM's Info-machine:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that by-elections will be held on June 30, 2014, in the ridings of Scarborough-Agincourt (Ontario), Trinity-Spadina (Ontario), FortMcMurray-Athabasca (Alberta), and Macleod (Alberta).
Wonder if this'll stretch the various party machines in the two Ontario ridings with the other election on the go?
 
Harper may regret it if Hudac coughs up this election like he did the last one....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top