Important On-line poll everyone should vote

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Funny enough I'm split on this type of question. The republican in me wants a check to the "mop rule" yet the Social Democrat in me wants more people power in this. If our government was set up right I'd say no! How our government is chosen now I'd have to say yes. But I do not think judges is a good place to go on mob rule. Actually the lower house should be reformed on these lines of a director democracy. As well as the head of state and a elected yet complicated elected senate which shouldn't be direct and the appointment of judges is what I think would be the best for out nation. But republican logic which westminster was orginally based on is completely lost this day and age for either mop rule or arostocracy rule by the burocrats. *shrugs* Why can't Canadians have stronger republican government roots! and see the benifits of checks and balances in the Westminster system which actually has them in place but not in use!
 

iamcanadian

Electoral Member
Nov 30, 2005
730
0
16
www.expose-ontario.org
Everyone that is not a lawyer and has been involved in a lawsuit will agree that ALL Canadian Judges should be elected and that the whole civiljustice system needs to be completely overhauled from the bottom up including the Law Society Systems.

It is a complete sham designed to take everyone's money and give it to lawyers, win lose or draw, when lawyers should rightly be a dime a dozen compared with any other more legitimate professions.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
I am not a lawyer, and I believe that our Justices should not be elected; to elect our Justices would only result in having a Court that would bend to the wishes of popular support — which would be, in my opinion, a flaw.

We should not have a Court that does whatever a majority thinks they should do; we should have a Court that does whatever the Constitution, and the legislation that governs our nation, says should be done.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Re: RE: Important On-line poll everyone should vote

FiveParadox said:
I am not a lawyer, and I believe that our Justices should not be elected; to elect our Justices would only result in having a Court that would bend to the wishes of popular support — which would be, in my opinion, a flaw.

We should not have a Court that does whatever a majority thinks they should do; we should have a Court that does whatever the Constitution, and the legislation that governs our nation, says should be done.

Yet again you show republican values Paradox! yet you are never consistant. lol.

Yeah as I was saying it isn't always the best idea to elect every official, and judges being one of the most immportant, as we do not wish to politize our judges. We want judges who are generally not going to follow any party line and we don't really want populists either. Both of which if we started to elect them would most likely get in. We should ensure judges who are quilfied to look over the constitution. Now of course having them screened by the upper house should be done.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
On the issue of our Justices, then, I would suppose that perhaps I am somewhat "republican" by your use of the term, Finder. I even believe that the recent move of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper to have nominees "interrogated" on national television is a terrible idea; this practice should be watched quite carefully.

If the Committee begins asking specifics (i.e., what would you do on a same-sex marriage reference, what would you do on an abortion reference, and et cetera) then such a Committee should be dissolved at once, and such a nominee rejected, and a new nomination process begun. We should not have anyone on the bench of our Supreme Court of Canada who makes their opinions on subjects such as these blatent and concrete notwithstanding whatever the particular case or question may be.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Re: RE: Important On-line poll everyone should vote

FiveParadox said:
On the issue of our Justices, then, I would suppose that perhaps I am somewhat "republican" by your use of the term, Finder. I even believe that the recent move of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper to have nominees "interrogated" on national television is a terrible idea; this practice should be watched quite carefully.

If the Committee begins asking specifics (i.e., what would you do on a same-sex marriage reference, what would you do on an abortion reference, and et cetera) then such a Committee should be dissolved at once, and such a nominee rejected, and a new nomination process begun. We should not have anyone on the bench of our Supreme Court of Canada who makes their opinions on subjects such as these blatent and concrete notwithstanding whatever the particular case or question may be.


I agree...
I however also think there should be more democracy in government but this isn't really the area it's needed in.

In democratic theory there is something called "mob rule" or the tyranny of the magority. Thats where the magority of the people opress the minority. This can easyly be done by pure democratic methods. This is also why governments like the UK (formerly) and the USA have complicated Republican systems with a multi layered government to check and balance each other to make it harder to have mob rule. This is why many of Bush's platforms have not been able to get approved or at least slowed down.

Anyhow for instance if we elected a judge... Let's say the magority of Canadians, don't believe in same sex marriage and vote against it and vote in a judge who will uphold such an intoleratent issue. Well this issue doesn't really effect anyone but gay citizens. It has zero effect on the vast magority of the people but because of a populer feeling this minority could be discriminated against. You can replace gay rights with religous freedoms. Such as laws against Jews Muslims and so on and so forth just because the magority of people might be ignorant at the time. Minority rights must be protected no matter what and electing judges would only retard the system and allow a for the magority to rule over and opress the minority.

So, even though I like the idea of electing judges as a democratic move, in the end I would have to be against it.
 

iamcanadian

Electoral Member
Nov 30, 2005
730
0
16
www.expose-ontario.org
Re: RE: Important On-line poll everyone should vote

FiveParadox said:
I am not a lawyer, and I believe that our Justices should not be elected; to elect our Justices would only result in having a Court that would bend to the wishes of popular support — which would be, in my opinion, a flaw.

We should not have a Court that does whatever a majority thinks they should do; we should have a Court that does whatever the Constitution, and the legislation that governs our nation, says should be done.

You proove my point.

You are not a lawyer and you have NOT been involved in a lawsuit.... Your opinion should not count much because you live in the la la land advanced by propaganda on this subject based on your response which indicates a lack of experience and reliance on faith in the integrity of the system.

Being religious about such a thing is not necessary because these are not metaphysical realities and problems are knowable by those exposed to the system.

A decision such as this should be based on the vote of the customers of this particular public service.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Re: RE: Important On-line poll everyone should vote

iamcanadian said:
FiveParadox said:
I am not a lawyer, and I believe that our Justices should not be elected; to elect our Justices would only result in having a Court that would bend to the wishes of popular support — which would be, in my opinion, a flaw.

We should not have a Court that does whatever a majority thinks they should do; we should have a Court that does whatever the Constitution, and the legislation that governs our nation, says should be done.

You proove my point.

You are not a lawyer and you have NOT been involved in a lawsuit.... Your opinion should not count much because you live in the la la land advanced by propaganda on this subject based on your response which indicates a lack of experience and reliance on faith in the integrity of the system.

Being religious about such a thing is not necessary because these are not metaphysical realities and problems are knowable by those exposed to the system.

A decision such as this should be based on the vote of the customers of this particular public service.

i don't understand how he proves your point. When it seems to me that he has systematically disproven your point.
 

iamcanadian

Electoral Member
Nov 30, 2005
730
0
16
www.expose-ontario.org
Everyone that is not a lawyer and has been involved in a lawsuit will agree that ALL Canadian Judges should be elected and that the whole civiljustice system needs to be completely overhauled from the bottom up including the Law Society Systems.

The above is the suposition, implying that those that have not experienced the system might not agree.

The response received is indicative of someone who has not experienced the system and does not agree as was implied.

1 + 1 = 2 above which is rare in the Civil Justice system of Canada where patronage and related cronyism tends to make the math become whatever number suits the individuals that can influence the system.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
So how is politizing and populerizing the legal system supposed to make it better? If anything it will make things a lot worse. Elected judges could remove the right for abortions, gay rights, well any minority rights if they are populer with the magority who elect the judge.
 

iamcanadian

Electoral Member
Nov 30, 2005
730
0
16
www.expose-ontario.org
Judges are governed by the written law. They can't change laws or breaak them they can only twist them.

It is the twisting of the law that judges do that must be judged by the population when voting.

Judges would not be under political parties as they are now. Making them elected independantly removes the politizising that exists today by apointments made by political parties without public say or input.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Re: RE: Important On-line poll everyone should vote

iamcanadian said:
Judges are governed by the written law. They can't change laws or breaak them they can only twist them.

It is the twisting of the law that judges do that must be judged by the population when voting.

Judges would not be under political parties as they are now. Making them elected independantly removes the politizising that exists today by apointments made by political parties without public say or input.

not really supreme court judges have the ability to make legal precedence. Like Wade Vs Roe in the USA. Our constitution is wide open for interpretation and twisting as you said. This is why we need judges who have no political backing or affiliation, and one which does not need to worry about what the magority want to hear. Judges are important because they are also the defeander of the minority.
 

iamcanadian

Electoral Member
Nov 30, 2005
730
0
16
www.expose-ontario.org
Re: RE: Important On-line poll everyone should vote

Finder said:
Not really supreme court judges have the ability to make legal precedence. Like Wade Vs Roe in the USA. Our constitution is wide open for interpretation and twisting as you said. This is why we need judges who have no political backing or affiliation, and one which does not need to worry about what the magority want to hear. Judges are important because they are also the defeander of the minority.

Your reasons would agree that they must be independantly elected by the population and not appointed by the political party in power at the time of their selection.

You are sucking and blowing on this point.

There is no good reason why they should not be independantly elected and voted in or out based on the kind of decisions they make. Any laws that judges twist to far in any direction can be re-written by the politicians. But not electing them alows the politicians to not only write laws, but also to influence their interpretation, which can't be seen as a good thing.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
I'd have to disagree with you further. One a PM, GG or whomever who appoints the judge doesn't really have to chose the judge who has political connections and often doesn't. Also once that judge has been picked and appointed they don't have to worry about elections or fullfilling some kind of political mandate an election would entitle. I think generally we do well with apolitical judges.

I'm not saying they would get elected under a party banner, but any election has politics involved and they would have to find or rather have support from a group they'd have to be subjected to.

Now I do not mind the American way where the president picks a canadate and then has the Senate approve it. I'm all for that. But direct elections... NO WAY! I dare not even imagine judges picked by the general Albertian populace.
 

iamcanadian

Electoral Member
Nov 30, 2005
730
0
16
www.expose-ontario.org
We agree to disagree. I believe this is the biggest mistake with Canada and the main reason there is no such thig as a working Civil Justice System for the general population. You have to be very rich or very poor to have any access to judicial decisions and anyone in betwen just gets screwed by the system and the lawyers regardless of the merits or results of the case.

I would go a step further and prohibit lawyers from running for the possition of judges and require a Jury of peers make all decisions both civil and criminal to remove the personal bias Judges bring to each case that results in twisted justice more often than not.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Roles of Our Justices

iamcanadian, I must continue to disagree with your assertions thus far. You would seem to charge that anyone who is involved in the Justice system must, in good conscience, support the election of Justices — in particular, those of the highest Court in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada. However, why then, would the highest-ranking Justice in Canada oppose the election of Justices, in particular to the highest Court in Canada?

The Right Honourable Beverly McLachlin, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and a Privy Councillor, has made it quite apparent that she opposes, in principle, the election of Justices; such would be in direct opposition to the Constitution Acts, and would be derogative of the rights of minorities in Canada.

I would urge you to click herehttp://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/aboutcourt/judges/speeches/DemocraticRoles_e.asp to read a speech of the Chief Justice on the subject of the democratic roles of Justices, in contrast to those of Members of Parliament and other various elected representatives of the people of Canada. Her speech addresses, in addition, charges of activism in the Supreme Court, and is quite a good read — but that would be, perhaps, another topic entirely.
 

zoofer

Council Member
Dec 31, 2005
1,274
2
38
Should Canada become like the U.S. and elect judges?

Note how the question is slanted given the average Canadian's skewed view of the USA.

The question should be:
Should Canada elect judges?

They didn't ask:
Should Canada remain like Iran or North Korea and appoint judges?

If the political parties changed hands regularly then the present lunatic system may be tolerable. After 40 years of Liberal regimes you have a court appointed by the one turkey who headed those regimes.

And why a Judge elected by the majority is inferior to one elected by a minority is beyond my ken.
In fact it is obscene.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Whether or not a Justice elected by majority is inferior, I have no idea — however, in terms of their administration of Justice, it would present too much of a bias in order for them to render decisions, in my opinion, with consideration of the Constitution and legislative measures, as opposed to what they think the population of Canada thinks the ruling should read.

Justices should not be afraid to make unpopular decisions — they should not have to consider whether or not their decision is going to upset people. For example, in terms of the responses of the Supreme Court of Canada to the same-sex marriage references, they responded in accordance with a widely-accepted interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (not only the Supreme Court of Canada, but a majority of Supreme and Superior Courts of the Provinces and Territories).

:!: Sidenote

Our Supreme Court of Canada consists of Justices appointed by three turkeys, just so you know (soon-to-be four); our current Chief Justice was appointed to the Court by the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, five current puisne Justices were appointed by the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien, and two were appointed by the Right Honourable Paul Martin — the vacant position is to be appointed by the Right Honourable Stephen Harper in relatively short order.
 

zoofer

Council Member
Dec 31, 2005
1,274
2
38
Who is to say what decisions elected Judges would have rendered? They may not have been anything different.
5 of the Judges have French as their mother tongue. Would this seem to present a bias towards Quebec?
Who is to say the Charter of Freedoms is the be all and end all of the Constitution? If Trudeau had anything to with it I would be leery.
What about property rights? Why did PET leave them out?