Important On-line poll everyone should vote

[TenPenny]

I cringe at the thought of elected judges.

We have a low opinion of our MPs; why do we think we could suddenly elect good judges?

I prefer the idea that judges are selected from qualified respected members of the bar. People who aren't qualified never get nominated by the bar association in the first place.

 

[FiveParadox]

zoofer, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not the "be all, end all" of the Constitution Acts, but rather a delimiting factor on its fellow provisions. The application of the Constitution Acts must be made in respect of the Charter, and the Charter must be applied insofar as the other Sections of the Acts, namely Sections 1 and 33, would provide for.

 

[zoofer]

Re: RE: Important On-line poll everyone should vote

I cringe at the thought of elected judges.

We have a low opinion of our MPs; why do we think we could suddenly elect good judges?

I prefer the idea that judges are selected from qualified respected members of the bar. People who aren't qualified never get nominated by the bar association in the first place.

Obviously a Wayne Gretzky or a popular golfer wouldn't be elected. The selection must be from a pool of jurists.
But who knows? Some Pizza joint operators sometimes display more common sense than our annointed Judges.

 

[FiveParadox]

zoofer, please keep in mind that our Justices are not supposed to rule based on common sense, but rather on the Statutes of Canada — more notably perhaps, the Constitution Acts. I would cringe at the idea (sorry for stealing your word, TenPenny) of having Justices on our Supreme Court of Canada who would ignore the law in lieu of common sense.

 

[zoofer]

Re: RE: Important On-line poll everyone should vote

zoofer, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not the "be all, end all" of the Constitution Acts, but rather a delimiting factor on its fellow provisions. The application of the Constitution Acts must be made in respect of the Charter, and the Charter must be applied insofar as the other Sections of the Acts, namely Sections 1 and 33, would provide for.

Fivepar.
I believe you would make good "High Court material".
I may even vote for you one day.
:lol:

 

[FiveParadox]

Come to think of it, I just realized that anyone who hasn't read the Constitution Acts would find that the passage you quoted means absolutely nothing to them. Haha. Just to clarify, Section 1 indicates that rights and freedoms in Canada are not absolute, and that the authority of Parliament to place limits thereon is recognized, so long as they can justify their reasoning before the Courts; Section 33 is better known as the "notwithstanding clause."

 

[iamcanadian]

Judges are just people. Many judges including those on the supreme court are not even a good semblance of the general population having themselves lived out their liveds on the dole of the pulic and few of them are not from priviledged upbringing and have not got a clue what real life is for the average Canadian.

Your faith in the system is very similar to a religion. I would rather put faith in some benevolent sppirit that may or may not exist, that some people appointed to power based on patronage or nepotism passed on through generations taking advantage of regular hard working average citizens.

I do not believe that the elite are any better people that the homeless walking the streets. In fact I would tend to say as my tagg line says that

 

[FiveParadox]

Justices Not Above Average

iamcanadian, I had no intention to imply through any means that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or her Puisne Justices are "better" than the average citizen; on the contrary, they are only that — citizens. They just so happen to have been appointed, based on the merit of their appointments, as has been the practice of the last three Prime Ministers, notwithstanding whatsoever their parties thus far.

However, I would assert that the Justices we have sitting on the Bench would have inherently less bias in their decisions than any Justice would, had such a Justice been elected by the people. We cannot trust in the majority opinion of the citizens of Canada in terms of adjudicating disagreements over the applications of the Constitution Acts or any other Statutes — it would be a dangerous precedent to say that the majority opinion could always be translated into the correct ruling in matters of justice.

 

[zoofer]

.....it would be a dangerous precedent to say that the majority opinion could always be translated into the correct ruling in matters of justice.

But a minority opinion is always proper and never dangerous?

Examples of countries where minorities appoint judges is not at all comforting.
Iran, North Korea, Syria, Russia, Cuba, Eqypt, Sudan, Canada, Yemen, Congo China.

 

[Finder]

excuse me I said nothing about minorties appointing judges! I said the judges and to add onto this, a Republican system of multilayed government like the USA helps protect the minority from a tyranny of the magority or mob rule for those of us who like the classics.

Nations like North Korea are actually using a totally different Rousseau/Marx/Hitler theory of the common good. In theory NK is forcing the magorities will on the minority. utter Utopian nightmare.

The USA's government was set up in this theory that a multi layed Democracy would ensure that the magority doesn't rule as a tyranny or at least is supposed to make it difficult for it to happen. Thus you have the President picking canadates for the Supreme court and the Senate approving the appointment. You also have the Senate, Congress, S-court and the excutive checking each others powers. A truly beautiful system of government which in theory at least should protect the minority.

 

[EagleSmack]

The question is somewhat skewed as well. Not all of judges in America are elected. Here is Mass they are appointed. This always has us up in arms because a lot are very liberal and once elected they answer to no one. No one.

One judge let a pedophile off with a warning and when the prosecutor went to protest she said

"Shut up! You shut your mouth! You are a disgrace and I will hold you in contempt in you open your mouth once more."

So she let a pedophile who was caught holding a screw driver up to an 11 year olds neck demanding "services" and she called the prosecutor a disgrace.

 

[FiveParadox]

EagleSmack, obviously a Justice (at least I would hope in Canada) would never make a decision unless there lacked evidence that would prove the suspect's guild. Just because a majority of citizens think that someon is guilty does not amount to a guilty verdict, nor should it.

Besides, in Canada, there are methods to remove a Justice from any Court, and in particular the Supreme Court of Canada — upon a resolution of both the House of Commons and the Senate, the Governor General of Canada can dismiss a Justice from the Court.

 

[iamcanadian]

Re: RE: Important On-line poll everyone should vote

Besides, in Canada, there are methods to remove a Justice from any Court, and in particular the Supreme Court of Canada — upon a resolution of both the House of Commons and the Senate, the Governor General of Canada can dismiss a Justice from the Court.

You are advancing a myth related to your faith.

Canada has never removed a Justice, ever.

This is reason enough to suggest that the system needs to change. Judges are human and there are evil and corrupt judges out there just like there are of other group of people.

 

[FiveParadox]

The method by which Justices of the Supreme Court can be dismissed is most certainly not a myth; the need has simply not arisen yet. I would urge you to show even one example of a situation that would warrant dismissing a Justice from the highest Court in Canada.

 

[iamcanadian]

The fact that the need has not once been identified after hundreds of years and thousands on individuals is example enough that the system is not working.

The odds that all these people for years and years getting appointed would never have one give enough cause for dismissal is unbelievable and proves there must be a problem with our system of patronage.

I have attempted to have a Judge removed from the bench who I believe was corrupt in a specific case, and have learned that it is not possible to do this in Canada under our current systems and practices.

You can file a complaint but there is no system for it to be reviewed and taken to somehow cause a dismissal or even a repremand.

Your view is based on a theory that cannot be actually applied in any practice. (speak to a lawyer)

 

[FiveParadox]

I have seen the statements of many lawyers on the subject — between documentaries on CPAC on the matter, and speeches from the Right Honourable Beverly McLachlin, the Chief Justice of Canada and a Privy Councillor, I believe that our Justices have acted in the best of behaviour while behind the Bench.

Moreover, your assertion that the Justices must be acting inappropriately, since nobody has proven inappropriate behaviour, is non-sensical. That would be akin to saying that apples must be purple, since in hundreds of years we have never proven them to be purple. We must keep in mind that there is an extensive process that takes place behind the scenes (in order to ensure that bias and politicisation of the positions on the Supreme Court are non-issues) in relation to the verification of Justices, in terms of both their conduct at the Bench and their past performance as Justices.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Important On-line poll everyone should vote

The fact that the need has not once been identified after hundreds of years and thousands on individuals is example enough that the system is not working.

The odds that all these people for years and years getting appointed would never have one give enough cause for dismissal is unbelievable and proves there must be a problem with our system of patronage.

I have attempted to have a Judge removed from the bench who I believe was corrupt in a specific case, and have learned that it is not possible to do this in Canada under our current systems and practices.

You can file a complaint but there is no system for it to be reviewed and taken to somehow cause a dismissal or even a repremand.

Your view is based on a theory that cannot be actually applied in any practice. (speak to a lawyer)

I do not know the case where you tried to have a judge removed. As anyone can launch a complate against any puplic offical, just because you have doesn't mean they will be removed from their posistion. An investigation has to take place and in small order if the complaint unjustified then the investigation would be short.

I have personally not seen very many instances where our judges havn't acted rigfhtly, often against the government too.

For instance the very democratic judgement on the Figueroa v. Canada case, which has helped rebuild many smaller parties which were crushed by anti-democratic election laws of the 90's.

True judges are not perfect, and there have been some spotted dessions in the past, but electing them would not solve this problem, indeed it may make things worse as you mix in politics. Would an elected judge with ties to the liberals or conservatives have judged in favour of Figueroa? I don't think so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figueroa_v._Canada_(Attorney_General)

 

[iamcanadian]

No one said that Judges would run for election under any party banner.

In fact the way they are appointed now by the party in power, is the way you get Judges who are aallined to parties.

Judges running for elections as individuals, allows them to stand by they laurels, explain and justify their decisions to the public that can question their decisions. Their opponets can bring up the decisions and put them as the topic of discusssion for justifying electing someone else.

As it is today once a judge has rendered a decision they and immune from any consequences. A Judge cannot be removed because of a decision they have made regardless how bad it was.

If a judge makes a decision based on being paid off or based on having a personal agenda or connection, there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it.

 

[TenPenny]

Re: RE: Important On-line poll everyone should vote

Besides, in Canada, there are methods to remove a Justice from any Court, and in particular the Supreme Court of Canada — upon a resolution of both the House of Commons and the Senate, the Governor General of Canada can dismiss a Justice from the Court.

You are advancing a myth related to your faith.

Canada has never removed a Justice, ever.

{quote]

Are you sure about that?


Do you mean "removed" or "requested resignation", and are you referring to all judges, or just at the federal level?

 

[iamcanadian]

Fired, forcefully removed from being a Judge because of bad decisions that where rendered illegitimately for personal or political gain, etc. - At any level of Court