The Supreme Court could use a lot more criticism


Locutus
+1
#1
We could use a little more criticism of Canada's top court. Actually we could use a lot more.Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been under fire from the media-opposition complex for daring to say Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin acted inappropriately in calling him about a case that might come before the court. The call never happened, but according to the PM's statement, McLachlin did call Harper's office to discuss the looming appointment of Marc Nadon, the judge she and her fellow judges deemed inadmissible to their ranks -- a version of events disputed by the chief justice in her own press release.

Apparently to the folks in the NDP, the Liberal Party and much of the media, you can criticize anything but a Supreme Court judge.
Not in my world.

I'm a regular critic of the court and view McLachlin and her fellow would-be gods as a load of useless gits. Some consider my comments to be contempt of court. Well, I do hold the judges in contempt and I do so because of their rotten track record of trampling basic rights and freedoms.

Last year in the Whatcott decision the court said truth is no defence.

"I do not think it is inconsistent with these views to find that not all truthful statements must be free from restriction," the decision said.
"Truthful statements can be interlaced with harmful ones or otherwise presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech."

It's unreal that in Canada saying something that is true can see you charged. So much for freedom of speech.


more


Sun News : A low opinion of the top bench
 
Walter
-1
#2
Right-on.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+1 / -1
#3
Exactly!!!
 
Goober
Free Thinker
+7 / -1
#4  Top Rated Post
I have no issue with the Govt stating they do not agree with rulings. I do have concerns how Harper made allegations against the Chief Justice, that if true would need to be investigated by Parliamentary Committed and if true, then it would be tabled in Parliemant, removing the Chief Justice.
Other than that this is Harper off again with baseless allegations.
And he crossed the line.
Guess hardline Cons cannot see that.
 
relic
Free Thinker
+5
#5
Must really piss 'ol stevie off when he can't even win with a stacked deck.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
+3 / -1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

I have no issue with the Govt stating they do not agree with rulings. I do have concerns how Harper made allegations against the Chief Justice, that if true would need to be investigated by Parliamentary Committed and if true, then it would be tabled in Parliemant, removing the Chief Justice.
Other than that this is Harper off again with baseless allegations.
And he crossed the line.
Guess hardline Cons cannot see that.

Guess the hardline stick to the party line Cons have nothing to say?
Fuk me. Right again.
Last edited by Goober; May 11th, 2014 at 07:52 PM..
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
+3
#7
Tossing Beanies at Beverley: Stephen Harper's Supreme temper tantrum



I’ve been trying to understand the thought process, because I want there to be a thought process, behind the squabble Stephen Harper has begun with Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada, which overall cannot be said to have benefited the Prime Minister.
If Mr. Harper could go back in time, would he do something to prevent anonymous high-level Conservative sources from insinuating that she acted inappropriately, indeed “lobbied,” in the matter of his failed Supreme Court nominee, Marc Nadon – and I’m not above thinking that might entail a simple, “No, on second thought, don’t”?


Tossing Beanies at Beverley: Stephen Harper's Supreme temper tantrum - The Globe and Mail
 
Tonington
+2
#8
Harper and his cabinet knew Nadon would have difficulties. They suggested he return to Quebec and begin practicing law again. That was before the court challenge that ultimately resulted in the failed nomination.
PM wanted Marc Nadon to practise law again to enhance eligibility for supreme court: report | National Post

It' one thing to criticize the Supreme Court decision based on merits. It's another entirely to lash out like a spoiled brat who didn't get what they wanted.

As for Harper's claim that the involvement of the Chief Justice was inappropriate, well the Government involved her in the selction process before there was ever a court challenge...
Timeline of events in the unsuccessful Supreme Court nomination of Marc Nadon | CTV News
Last edited by Tonington; May 11th, 2014 at 08:42 PM..
 
Spade
Free Thinker
+4
#9
As a member of the Privy Council, the Chief Justice has an obligation to advise. The Government's attack is petty.
 
Tonington
+4 / -1
#10
The red herring regarding criticizing the Supreme Court is deflecting from the real issue of Harper acting like a spoiled vindictive brat.
 
BornRuff
+4 / -1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been under fire from the media-opposition complex for daring to say Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin acted inappropriately in calling him about a case that might come before the court. The call never happened, but according to the PM's statement, McLachlin did call Harper's office to discuss the looming appointment of Marc Nadon, the judge she and her fellow judges deemed inadmissible to their ranks -- a version of events disputed by the chief justice in her own press release.

This paragraph is a great example of the brazen stupidity that Sun News promotes.

Harper was "daring" to accuse the Chief Justice of the supreme court of acting inappropriately, even though the action in question demonstrably did not happen, but somehow this is still an argument for why Harper should keep attacking the supreme court.

If there really was anything that he was concerned about, why would he wait until now to bring it up? Why wouldn't he bring it up through official channels instead of leaking it to the press?

The is obviously nothing more than sour grapes because he is frustrated that another institution is trying to make him follow the law.

Is it not concerning to anyone that Harper has started to constantly attack anyone and everyone charged with making him respect the law? First it was Elections Canada, now it is the Supreme Court. Who is next? The RCMP for investigating his corrupt staffers and senators?
 
MHz
#12
If freedom of speech is tied into anything the UN covers then Canada is in the defendants chair rather than sitting on the bench and the court is most likely in the same building as the ICC and the War Crimes place, both relatively empty since they were created to hear the plight of the member Nations and the 'woes' of running into the Security Members and any misuse of the authority they may have been granted.
Did I mentioned televised, if not I should have, 15 channels of nothing but footage from the trial and down to being able to follow the ones in the building around like they were still in the courtroom if that suits the 'viewer'. Want to see something pulled apart to the last thread get it out to as much of the world as possible and run the results as a 'referendum as voted on by a 'citizen of the world' or at least a panel of Judges that are not sitting at more than one chair. (if I was a Judge from Lebannon sitting on the STL I would vote 'not guilty on the first morning and leave the building for the first and last time, or cross the floor and sit at the defense table after they have just been told the false flag details that are bogus, whoopsi.
 
WLDB
No Party Affiliation
#13
I'm fine with criticism of the court whether it comes from the government, media, regular citizens or anyone else for that matter. I also disagree with a number of decisions the court has made over the years including ones made by Mclachlin. Thats the way it goes. It is a bit funny though, McLachlin was appointed by a conservative as has most of the court at this point. I don't recall if Harper is at 3 or 4 at this point. If he wins the election next year he will get to replace McLachlin as her time is coming up.
 
Nuggler
+3 / -1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

The red herring regarding criticizing the Supreme Court is deflecting from the real issue of Harper acting like a spoiled vindictive brat.


What's new, eh.
 
BornRuff
+3
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

The red herring regarding criticizing the Supreme Court is deflecting from the real issue of Harper acting like a spoiled vindictive brat.

The guy has been in charge way too long and is starting to feel pretty entitled.
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#16
OMG, even Wally got a red. Someone is light on the trigger finger on this thread.
 
Nuggler
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

OMG, even Wally got a red. Someone is light on the trigger finger on this thread.


I give Wally a red even before I read his posts. T it for tat, and all that.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

I'm fine with criticism of the court whether it comes from the government, media, regular citizens or anyone else for that matter. I also disagree with a number of decisions the court has made over the years including ones made by Mclachlin. Thats the way it goes. It is a bit funny though, McLachlin was appointed by a conservative as has most of the court at this point. I don't recall if Harper is at 3 or 4 at this point. If he wins the election next year he will get to replace McLachlin as her time is coming up.

The current composition of the Supreme Court:
  • Chief Justice (appointed by the Progressive Conservatives)
  • two (2) justices (appointed by the Liberals)
  • five (5) justices (appointed by the Conservatives)
 
Goober
Free Thinker
-1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

I'm fine with criticism of the court whether it comes from the government, media, regular citizens or anyone else for that matter. I also disagree with a number of decisions the court has made over the years including ones made by Mclachlin. Thats the way it goes. It is a bit funny though, McLachlin was appointed by a conservative as has most of the court at this point. I don't recall if Harper is at 3 or 4 at this point. If he wins the election next year he will get to replace McLachlin as her time is coming up.

And the former Justice Minister, You know the guy, you are either with us or the pornographers, now a Justice appointed by Harper, is eligible for the SCoC. Ffn scary.
 

Similar Threads

44
51
U.S. Supreme Court has ruled....
by B00Mer | Sep 12th, 2011
2
All the way to the Supreme Court again...
by CDNBear | Dec 29th, 2006
11
US Supreme Court moves even further right.
by Hard-Luck Henry | Dec 15th, 2005
no new posts