No that's what the SCoC has done.
The only organisation during the past few years to damage the fundamental principles of justice has been the
Conservative Party of Canada, and the evidence of that is clear. The changes to the appointments process as pushed for by
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (
Calgary Southwest), the
Prime Minister of Canada, tarnish these principles—having a candidate respond to questions by members of the elected
House of Commons makes no sense. The purpose of that hearing was exclusively for the Conservative Party to probe to see whether the candidate was agreeable to the conservative cause. The Conservative Party has openly declared the Supreme Court to be an obstacle to conservative governance, so at least its assault against judicial independence makes sense.
Shall I go to TPA and dig up the list of cases they dropped the ball on, the list of cases they over stepped their bounds on, the list of cases they actually made the law up on their own?
Shall I?
You stopped posting to me on this topic there, then, shall we have a repeat?
I think that would be fabulous, it would be a very engaging discussion.
The Supreme Court (at least under the leadership of
The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin P.C., the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, as that is as far back as my memory goes) has
never issued a decision based in anything less than a concrete foundation of law and constitutional principles. You can throw any decision you wish out here, I would love to go through the texts of the decision to demonstrate to you exactly how the Supreme Court’s decision is just and appropriate. The professionalism and non-partisanship of our Supreme Court, through its decisions, is documented public record.
Look 5P, you admire them, I don't. Even though I enjoy the fruit of some of their rulings, I would gladly return my share, to have them dissolved and replaced with a body that represents the values and traditions of the very nation they claim to represent. So how about we agree to disagree?
That’s the point of my side of this argument—it isn’t the Supreme Court’s job to represent the people of Canada. That is exclusively a function of the
Senate of Canada and the
House of Commons (that is, the representation of Canadians). The role of the Supreme Court (as I see it) has nothing to do with democracy, and everything to do with ensuring adherence, in law, to the Canadian constitution. It would completely defeat the purpose of a judicial system for a court to make decisions based on what any group of people
want a decision to be.
They've done more to make a mockery of this country then any politician in this country's history.
The prime minister, with just the above tactic, has taken the cake on that category single-handedly.
Definitely appointed, not elected. If they are elected, no way will they interpret the constitution dispassionately, fairly. When they know that have to win next election, each and every decision they hand down will be designed so that the reelection became easier.
I completely agree—one of the worst decisions that we could make as a country, on the sphere of judicial administration, would be to have our honourable justices elected. The judicial system used by the United States seems to be a “kangaroo court” system of sorts, where the bench is more worried about perception than it is the proper and impartial interpretation of the law. The example that you cited, with regard to the election of
The Honorable George W. Bush,
43rd President of the United States, is the perfect deterrent.
