Harper Appoints His Two Judges
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Pretty much, I would rather have appointed judges though, let them reflect who we vote into office. Ideally, they would be politically neutral but that's not realistic.
Quebec Bar Association asks feds to reconsider Supreme Court appointment
MONTREAL—The Quebec Bar Association is asking the Harper government to reconsider its appointment of a unilingual judge to the Supreme Court of Canada.
It decries the nomination of Justice Michael Moldaver, who does not speak French.
The bar association says Canadian citizens have the right to expect that, when they appear in court, they will be understood regardless of what official language they speak.
It says it would still oppose the nomination if Moldaver only spoke French — not English. The association says the issue here is that a nominee to the high court should be able to understand arguments in both official languages.
Yesterday’s nomination has intensified a debate over bilingualism in the justice system.
Opponents of mandatory bilingualism say what matters most is that a judge can understand the law — and, if there’s a problem with language, the court has translation services.
But the bar association says that’s not fair; it says an earpiece and interpreter are no substitute for understanding someone directly when they’re arguing in court.
The association says this appointment means two of the Supreme Court’s nine judges are now unilingual.
Canada News: Quebec Bar Association asks feds to reconsider Supreme Court appointment - thestar.com
MONTREAL—The Quebec Bar Association is asking the Harper government to reconsider its appointment of a unilingual judge to the Supreme Court of Canada.
It decries the nomination of Justice Michael Moldaver, who does not speak French.
The bar association says Canadian citizens have the right to expect that, when they appear in court, they will be understood regardless of what official language they speak.
It says it would still oppose the nomination if Moldaver only spoke French — not English. The association says the issue here is that a nominee to the high court should be able to understand arguments in both official languages.
Yesterday’s nomination has intensified a debate over bilingualism in the justice system.
Opponents of mandatory bilingualism say what matters most is that a judge can understand the law — and, if there’s a problem with language, the court has translation services.
But the bar association says that’s not fair; it says an earpiece and interpreter are no substitute for understanding someone directly when they’re arguing in court.
The association says this appointment means two of the Supreme Court’s nine judges are now unilingual.
Canada News: Quebec Bar Association asks feds to reconsider Supreme Court appointment - thestar.com
Doesn't happen when the Judiciary is elected. Judges will pander to what the community sentiment is.
So long as an Anglophone needs an interpretor in a Quebec Courtroom, because the Judge is unilingual. The Quebec Bar Assoc. can go blow goats.
Oh well, the time is coming when the more left of center will have their turn.
Perhaps then, they can simply add more judges to offset these two; I for one
do believe if a government passes laws that are not in keeping with the bill of
rights or the constitution, the Supreme Court should strike them down as being
outside the legal parameters of law.
The time has come in this country to make social engineering by government
unacceptable. I do not think social conservatives should be allowed to use the
system to push their narrow view of the world on the rest of society. Don't think
so, well its true they did get a majority of seats to govern the country from a
fiscal and political standpoint. However it should be noted that over sixty percent
of Canadians rejected them at the polls. Social differences to me are different
than fiscal and political policy. Fiscal Conservatism is good at times and most of
the time at that. Political Conservatism is the national and international view
taken on political matters that have a bearing on our present and future
relationships with each other and the world.
Social Conservative policy is directed from a top down government position and
imposed on the rest of us, as to what is and is not acceptable to a specific group
in society. These Justices are going to be there not to serve the interests of
Canadians, no instead they will be on the bench to serve the interests of Mr Harper
and the Social Conservatives within his government and I object to that.
Perhaps then, they can simply add more judges to offset these two; I for one
do believe if a government passes laws that are not in keeping with the bill of
rights or the constitution, the Supreme Court should strike them down as being
outside the legal parameters of law.
The time has come in this country to make social engineering by government
unacceptable. I do not think social conservatives should be allowed to use the
system to push their narrow view of the world on the rest of society. Don't think
so, well its true they did get a majority of seats to govern the country from a
fiscal and political standpoint. However it should be noted that over sixty percent
of Canadians rejected them at the polls. Social differences to me are different
than fiscal and political policy. Fiscal Conservatism is good at times and most of
the time at that. Political Conservatism is the national and international view
taken on political matters that have a bearing on our present and future
relationships with each other and the world.
Social Conservative policy is directed from a top down government position and
imposed on the rest of us, as to what is and is not acceptable to a specific group
in society. These Justices are going to be there not to serve the interests of
Canadians, no instead they will be on the bench to serve the interests of Mr Harper
and the Social Conservatives within his government and I object to that.
We don't need to they were appointed by Harper weren't they? Remember
this is the guy who wanted government employees to answer the phone by
saying Good morning, Harper Government.
They are conservatives who do not believe in challenging the governing
party when they make laws. Therefore they are little more than an extension
of the government, there to support the government position. That is not
healthy for the country. All laws instituted and passed by government through
Parliament should be subject to scrutiny to determine their value to society.
If a government is not competent enough to get the law write when bringing it
in, it should be overturned.
this is the guy who wanted government employees to answer the phone by
saying Good morning, Harper Government.
They are conservatives who do not believe in challenging the governing
party when they make laws. Therefore they are little more than an extension
of the government, there to support the government position. That is not
healthy for the country. All laws instituted and passed by government through
Parliament should be subject to scrutiny to determine their value to society.
If a government is not competent enough to get the law write when bringing it
in, it should be overturned.
CDNBear in this case yes it is partisan only in that appointing judges is a
ritual of both the left and the right throughout our history. I was of course
joking about appointing more judges to the bench as the number is a fixed
number and always has been.
As for the law being the law, it is except when it does not meet the standard
of fairness or equitable application. It is then determined to be outside of the
constitution or the Charter of Rights. If that happens the law is struck down.
Plain and simple, not even the government is above the law, and in a
democratic state the law has to be fairly applied. Social Conservatism is
a small minority of Canadians attempting to impose their view on the rest of us.
It has happened before and will again I am sure. In the meantime the courts
being the Supreme Court will determine the legal aspects of individual case law.
The next government can of course overturn the unpopular laws that were
enacted.
There were once laws against liquor, against being gay for example. and there
were laws determined unfair against Japanese people and the Chinese exclusion
laws. Women not having the right to vote and still the laws against pot while allowing
booze to flow freely. These are all measures of social policy not legislative policy.
The oriental exclusion act was struck down because it was an afront to humanity,
prohibition was struck down because it was an insane policy to start with brought into
force demanded by abolitionists and the churches.
Women gained the right to vote in spite of Conservatives and Liberals and I am using
the word loosely here not as in parties per say but in viewpoint.
It is Harper's right to appoint judges but this guy does not do things in the same manner
as most leaders, he does things for Mr. Harper's benefit first and Canadians second.
Of course this government will pass like all the others and I am sure when the next
group take over they will come under much the same criticism as Harper.
ritual of both the left and the right throughout our history. I was of course
joking about appointing more judges to the bench as the number is a fixed
number and always has been.
As for the law being the law, it is except when it does not meet the standard
of fairness or equitable application. It is then determined to be outside of the
constitution or the Charter of Rights. If that happens the law is struck down.
Plain and simple, not even the government is above the law, and in a
democratic state the law has to be fairly applied. Social Conservatism is
a small minority of Canadians attempting to impose their view on the rest of us.
It has happened before and will again I am sure. In the meantime the courts
being the Supreme Court will determine the legal aspects of individual case law.
The next government can of course overturn the unpopular laws that were
enacted.
There were once laws against liquor, against being gay for example. and there
were laws determined unfair against Japanese people and the Chinese exclusion
laws. Women not having the right to vote and still the laws against pot while allowing
booze to flow freely. These are all measures of social policy not legislative policy.
The oriental exclusion act was struck down because it was an afront to humanity,
prohibition was struck down because it was an insane policy to start with brought into
force demanded by abolitionists and the churches.
Women gained the right to vote in spite of Conservatives and Liberals and I am using
the word loosely here not as in parties per say but in viewpoint.
It is Harper's right to appoint judges but this guy does not do things in the same manner
as most leaders, he does things for Mr. Harper's benefit first and Canadians second.
Of course this government will pass like all the others and I am sure when the next
group take over they will come under much the same criticism as Harper.
:lol::lol:..............I read "anoints" his two judges....................8O
........gettin old.
........gettin old.
Correct. Which makes this next part...
Useless partisan hyperbole.
All enacted by either side of the spectrum.
Like every other party leader.