Supreme Court Rules in favour of Opitz


mentalfloss
#1
It was pretty close.

Harper's hand is definitely in someone's pocket here.

Supreme Court rules in favour of Tory Opitz in contested Etobicoke Centre riding

9 voices on the Supreme Court election ruling - Politics - CBC News
 
In Between Man
Free Thinker
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post


Harper's hand is definitely in someone's pocket here.

Prove it.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#3
BShxit-
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

It was pretty close.

Harper's hand is definitely in someone's pocket here.

Supreme Court rules in favour of Tory Opitz in contested Etobicoke Centre riding

9 voices on the Supreme Court election ruling - Politics - CBC News

So you think Harper bought those lefty judges? No chance they just don't like frivolous law suits?
 
mentalfloss
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

So you think Harper bought those lefty judges?

Nah.

But it was pretty close, which doesn't instill as much confidence in the ruling and highlights the fact that it had to go allll the way up to the Supreme Court. I'm sure that won't stop Harpy throwing a big party and marking this as a monumental achievement for democracy.

I'm so proud. *tears*
 
petros
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Harper's hand is definitely in someone's pocket here.

Team pocket pool? Crappy sport and the refs are s.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
+2
#7  Top Rated Post
We are watching the same political rot we have seen in America and other nations.
The next step will be some populace revolution that has struck so many other countries.
This does not mean the masses will be liberated it means they are likely end up with a
situation that is unstable.
No the Conservatives did not buy someone to get the vote they wanted, they merely
observed the mental state of the judicial system which left and right is totally and I mean
dysfunctional.
Most people don't even notice how much western society is slowly crumbling and we do
nothing at all. We pride ourselves left and right for how politically correct we can be, we
demonstrate how understanding we are when we allow our basic fabric of ethics and morals
collapse. This is not the evil left, or even the nasty right, it is the collection of generations
past and present that slowly let the rules slide by in the belief that the world will turn out just
fine as long as everybody gets what every body wants before they check out.
The courts would not rule against the MP because they don't want to interfere with the inner
workings of the government itself regardless of who is in power.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#8
I am disappointed in this ruling. The SCoC is basically saying the constitutional requirements for a vote to be legitimate and counted are non-existent. I am all for EVERY eligible voter turning up at the polls and casting a ballot, in fact it should be required as long as voting for 'none of the above' is an option but allowing votes to be counted that are not correct under the elections act and the constitution is a travesty.

I have accepted the fact that all levels of govt and the police will ignore the constitution or try to do things that are unconstitutional while telling the populace it is for our benefit but to get that from the SCoC who are supposed to protect that document I am appalled. This is not just another step in eroding the charter of rights and the constitution but a giant leap off a cliff into the abyss of tyranny where laws can be changed in a heartbeat to suit the needs of those in power.
 
In Between Man
Free Thinker
+2
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNick View Post

it should be required

Required!? As Petros would say "sounds Commie to me"...
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by In Between Man View Post

Required!? As Petros would say "sounds Commie to me"...

I say if you want a real democracy then you better show up. If I didn't like any of the contenders I used to go and write "none of the above" but then got informed that spoiling the ballot was an offence so now I vote for whomever I believe will get the lowest total. That is why I believe NOTA should be an option in every riding of every election.
 
In Between Man
Free Thinker
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNick View Post

I say if you want a real democracy then you better show up. If I didn't like any of the contenders I used to go and write "none of the above" but then got informed that spoiling the ballot was an offence so now I vote for whomever I believe will get the lowest total. That is why I believe NOTA should be an option in every riding of every election.

I don't like the idea of people "following the crowd" and voting how those close to them vote because they're apathetic and uninformed, yet required by law to vote.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by In Between Man View Post

I don't like the idea of people "following the crowd" and voting how those close to them vote because they're apathetic and uninformed, yet required by law to vote.

Most voters are apathetic and uniformed now. The amount of people I talked to last election who said they were voting for 'Layton' or 'Harper' When pressed they could not even name the candidate in their local riding let alone what that candidates actual stance on the issues was....

NB: I am honored to see you quote me as your signature.
 
Niflmir
Free Thinker
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNick View Post

I am disappointed in this ruling. The SCoC is basically saying the constitutional requirements for a vote to be legitimate and counted are non-existent. I am all for EVERY eligible voter turning up at the polls and casting a ballot, in fact it should be required as long as voting for 'none of the above' is an option but allowing votes to be counted that are not correct under the elections act and the constitution is a travesty.

Voting should only be required when "The electoral process should be changed," is on every ballot.

Not showing up to vote should be seen as a lack of faith in the electoral system, not acquiescence to the result. If voting is not important to people then a lack of faith is exactly what is being demonstrated.