So you're saying appointed judges are not vetted and carefully selected by people who understand the law?
U.S. Justice System more just?
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
So you're saying appointed judges are not vetted and carefully selected by people who understand the law?
I wouldn't call it splitting hairs, nor is it a chicken/egg theory, if there were no public action many rights would not have been granted. Some were stubbornly denied for a long time, native Canadians did not get the full right to vote until 1960.
You may not think that the right to own and enjoy private property is important yourself, but that right was important enough for NDP leader Ed Broadbent, (possibly with the collusion of David Lewis) to convince Pierre Trudeau to intentionally omit it from the Charter. Not only does this speak volumes about one of our most important basic Common Law rights, it also indicates what kind of government we were, and are headed for. Do you trust them? Any of them? There was a time that government served at the pleasure of the people, that train has left the station.
You're kidding, right?
I don't know what the answer would be, both processes fail the smell test. Public opinion is too fickle and politicians want the judiciary to be in line with their ideology. I had thought at one time that they should present their case and CV to either the House or Legislative Assembly and have our MP's or MLS's (MPP's and MNA's in Ontario and Quebec) elect them. But again, depending on who holds the majority the justice system will still be tainted by political ideology. No one with any modicum of intellegence can deny that it isn't already tainted, read some Supreme Court decisions if you're not already convinced. I guess it is what it is, at least we can still "judge shop" if we need to.
No different than a being in a popularity contest. The problem is how many people are really qualified to appoint a judge? (should judges only be appointed by other judges, that thinking gives a lot of power to the judicial branch) Most judges who are elected or appointed are qualified for the position, some how we all luck out that way, everybody may not like their decisions, that is why there are appeals.
Some countries have punitive judicial systems, and some have systems geared more toward rehabilitation. Countries that practice capital punishment are, in general, punitive. They adhere to the belief that bad people cannot be rehabilitated, so they should be killed, or caged, for life. Canada practices a combination of punishment and rehabilitation. Much of Western Europe (Roman law) practices rehabilitation.
I much prefer Canada to any country that kills, or permanently cages, people that do bad things.
I much prefer Canada to any country that kills, or permanently cages, people that do bad things.
Actually I do not think an absolute right to own and enjoy property would be a good idea. To me this idea smacks of corporate interests attempting to obtain a perpetual hold on what should not necessarily be in the permanent possession of big business. In the long term the interests of the nation should come before the interests of any single individual and should certainly come before the interests of private businesses whose only interest is in maximizing profit. Sometimes that means that an individual must give up the right to property in the interest of the majority. This happens all the time in Canada when roads have to be enlarged or facilities must be created for public use. That does not mean that those dispossessed should not be properly compensated, but certainly the right to property should not outweigh the needs of society.
There is a difference between witch hunts and being vigilant. Paranoia is only the belief that they are out to get you; what do you call it when they realy are?
Mao, Ёосэф, Adolf, Idi, Pol, Ho Chi Minh, among others would really like you. Who determines need? Governments are worse than any large business imaginable in their quest to maximize their holdings, that is what wars are fought over. Forget about ideologies, wars are fought over real estate, period. If citizens are not allowed to keep and protect their own lands they will certainly not be very conscientious protectors of their sovereign's lands. Fighters for totalitarian regimes found out too late that their fight was based on a lie and land conquered would not be theirs but their master's. The Roman and British Empires lasted so long only because the people trusted their sovereign and fought for it with the guarantee they could keep their land. The empires fell once this was no longer the case. Sorry dude, its only human nature, people are only going to fight your fight if it also benefits them, I won't protect your land if it means giving up mine. The people with nothing are the ones who will fight, but they end up with nothing anyway, they also end up as slaves to the state with everyone else, or worse, they become the master's goons.
Yes but, as I've said many times in the past, tyranny creeps as society sleeps, it's not here... yet. Wakey wakey.
McCarthy didn't last long, to bad he damaged so many good people, their reputation and job opportunities.
Most people McCarthy "damaged" deserved to be damaged, and they were not good people in the first place.
..
I have a question - Can you name one nation of the world that gives anyone absolute control of private property? If you can't I think you will see that it is you who is out of step, not me. Get back to me after your search. I expect you will find that it is futile.
Yes, that's true. McCarthy never hurt any innocent people, or ruined any careers because of a difference in politics. He was always respectful of the freedom to have different political leanings, and encouraged diversity of thought. He was a pretty amazing man, always there to encourage people to think and be open and honest.
I question that? Is Communism not a "different political leaning? I'm not big on Communism, but I'd sure be hesitant to label those who believe in it as evil. I think he harrassed a lot of harmless people.
On this Y.J. we have to agree to disagree.
JLM, Communism is Mao Tse Tung, (sixty million victims) Stalin, (six million Ukranians starved to death plus many other millions perishing in the Gulag), Pol Pot (a real gentle Communist, only two million victims), Ho Chi Minh, Che, the Castro Brothers (Several thousands in concentration Camps), not to mention the various Communist thugs in Africa.
And you are hesitant to label them evil?
McCarthy only "harrassed" those would be traitors, who would not have hesitated to bring that benevolent political idea to America.
I'm going to begrudgingly concede the point. Have Communists done any more damage than "Christians"?