I think the problem is that the Court has entirely far too much power. I just wish we were able to vote them out if we didn't like the job they were doing.
BC Lawyers Have Exempted Themselves From Federal Money Laundering Laws!
- Thread starter wizard
- Start date
I think the problem is that the Court has entirely far too much power. I just wish we were able to vote them out if we didn't like the job they were doing.
What's the difference between a dead dog on the side of a road and a dead lawyer on the side of the road?
There are brake skids near the dog.
There are brake skids near the dog.
That reminds me of the old joke:
"What do you call a thousand dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?"
"A good start."
I get what you're saying but I don't, I wouldn't like to see the judiciary voted in at all. My concern is that their focus would switch from matters of legal importance to whether or not their decisions would likely see them re-elected. We have enough trouble with elected officials who are elected to do a "job" but end up caving to public pressure and special interest groups/lobbys.
And I'm fairly certain as well, as evidenced by the existence of this thread in fact, that there a more than a few individuals within society that don't grasp the concept of the law and structure of the courts. It's a rather frightening concept to think that they would have a say in just who gets to determine matters of legal consequence. If there is any system within society that needs a cold, rational application of principals, the courts are it.
The pressure of the public belongs right where it is, on Parliament and Legislature to draft better laws, not on judges who apply legal principals and concepts to existing legislation.
We wish that were true, but it's not quite. Chief Justice Antonio Lamer started the practice of "reading in"; where the law was unclear, he would read in what he thought it meant, or what the court wanted it to mean, rather than go to the trouble of sending it pack to parliament. That practice lead to "writing in" to the point that the Charter has lost most of its original intent.
Reading SCC rulings is pretty dry stuff, but studying some of them you cannot tell how they followed any rule of law whatsoever. Even when they make the right decisions they often cite the wrong reasons, even when the law was clearly on their side. Some of the toughest to get through were those of Claire L'Heureux-Dube and Bertha Wilson. Though Ms. L'heureux-Dube may be forgiven if the possibility exists that her judgments were translated from French, but both her's and Ms. Wilson's rulings were filled with obfuscations and made up words that didn't appear in any dictionary at the time. (It may seem unfair to single out these two, but they were the most accomodating to the feminist cause and found ways to usurp Section 15 of the Charter in order to make men less equal under the law).
The sad truth is that the judiciary bring their own set of morals and biases to the bench and too often it is the rule of the zeitgeist rather than the rule of law that wins the day. Though it can't be proven, because the court does not need to explain itself, but it seems that some cases are not granted leave to appeal because there would be no way of ruling against the case without putting justice in disrepute, and ruling in favour would upset the zeitgeist apple cart.
This isn't necessarily the fault of the SCC, but rather Parliament's deference to the SCC on thorny issues that may threaten re-election. Though democracy is full of evils, court made law is worse.
There are a few on this forum that would disagree. They believe the courts are the be all and end all of everything. They've been pretty quiet on this thread (not surprisingly).
The Supreme Court of Canada will either uphold the law, or Parliament will override the Supreme Court and impose the law anyway.
Any it's about time that the courts, and lawyers, learn that they are NOT above the law.
Any it's about time that the courts, and lawyers, learn that they are NOT above the law.
A bit of a dichotomy, the SCC upholding laws written by parliament or rewriting laws at their pleasure due to govenments'deference to the SCC. Only once has a government invoked its priviledge under the "Notwithstanding" clause to overrule the SCC, it was Quebec with Bill 101, bilingualism bedamned. Until parliament finds the way to use this tool effectively, the lawyers and courts will not only be above the law, they will BE the law.
The Govts make laws -0 Courts interpret it - If i is a bad law - it is overturned or some past may be overturned leaving the rest intact.
As to elected Judges - look to the corruption in States that elect Judges.
If a Law is overturned the Govt can amend as such.
The govt can also use the NWC - And use the reasoning that time is required to write a new law. Nothing the SCOC can do about that.
i find lots of fault with our Justice system. When each case on a crime code offense a Judge in another prov lowers the average sentence that becomes the new standard and is used for sentencing guidelines by the ROC.
Check and see the disparity between provinces on the same laws when it comes to sentencing.
Pot for example. Nabbed in AB, move to BC, have case transferred, lower sentence. Why is that. That is why the Cons were able to come out with their mostly dumb ass sentencing laws. The public was disgusted - an emotion - the cons capitalized on that.
While the US is moving away from this we are headed down the same road they did with all the fiscal and social costs that follow. The social cost are noted by more crimes committed by former prisoners for one.
In some areas we need tougher sentences, other not so.
Lastly - Why has the Govt not listed Gangs as a threat to National Security.
Freedom of association and assembly are OK as long as they aren't done in public?
Police chiefs back anti-mask bill - Canada - CBC News
"Some Canadian police chiefs are voicing support for a private member's bill that would criminalize wearing a mask or covering the face during a riot or unlawful assembly."
Politicizing the legal system in any way, is counterproductive, IMHO.
Do want an Economist defining/writing/interpreting law?
You haven't been quiet, just silent about your own words.
No I haven't. If you are saying my statement about the legal conceptof innocent until proven guilty has any relation to the idea that people are being treated differently by the law because of their profession then what can I say. Your comparison is idiotic.
Last edited:
Yes, legal system is what one would use to describe one specific part. :roll:
Your mastery of the back peddle and double talk, is just sad. Nice try though.