Canadian Bar Association slams Harper Gov't

[CDNBear]

What a load of nonsense.

A lesson in nonsense from the likes of you, I think not sunshine.

The Supreme Court’s role does not overlap that of the House of Commons. The Supreme Court only has the power to strike down legislation that is inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or other elements of our constitution.

Which flies in the face of democracy.

This has always been the case.

BS.

Our judicial institutions are an instrument of the Parliament of Canada—there is no decision that the Supreme Court can make that cannot be corrected by legislation consistent with the fundamental principles of justice and with due regard to the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

:lol:

Once again, CDNBear, cite just one example of a decision made by the bench of The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin P.C., the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada that is inconsistent with the Canadian constitution.

The Charter be damned, it hasn't been ratified by the whole country. Some Legislation predates the Charter.

Canadian opinions, the requests of the majority, the party make-up of the Government of the day—these are not things that the Supreme Court needs to be concerned with.

That's apperant, esspecialy when they right new law that over steps their bounds, like when they up hold the removal of a child who's home was found to be satisfactory.

The Supreme Court only needs to interpret the law (as it has done admirably in each and every case brought before the wise bench of the present Chief Justice) and make determinations as to when laws breach the provisions of our constitution, and to tender constitutional advice (via references) to the Government when so requested (such as with advice tendered to the Government through Re: Same-sex Marriage—and even then, the Supreme Court refused to answer some of the questions posed to it so as to avoid playing a hand in the development of legislation). When the Supreme Court strikes down an Act, or a portion thereof, that isn’t the Supreme Court ‘acting up’ or making changes to Canadian law—it is the correction of a law that was not constitutional to start with.

Your blinders are showing 5P.

When THE legal body out right abuses it's position, it's done, it's credibility shattered. Sadly the appathy and complete stupidity of the majority of Canadians has allowed them to continue.

 

[CDNBear]

The Courts rulling on SSM was well within the constructs of our Charter. A Charter, I might add, that was put together and passed by the House.

The House of Commons tried to curcumvent Charter rights with laws banning marriage by SS partners.

Ahh, but the Charter is not a fully ratified document.

 

[gerryh]

Ahh, but the Charter is not a fully ratified document.

ROFL.....grasping at straws I see...... so majority rules only apply when they support what you think......I'll remember that.

 

[CDNBear]

ROFL.....grasping at straws I see...... so majority rules only apply when they support what you think......I'll remember that.

Ya that's right Gh, I'm against SSM...:roll:

Give your head a shake will ya!

They effectively altered legislation, against the expressed will of the people. That is undemocratic period, and it certainly isn't the only piece of legislation, federal or provincial, that they have altered.

 

[FiveParadox]

A lesson in nonsense from the likes of you, I think not sunshine.

“[T]he likes of [me]”?! I’m hurt! :lol: But I love you nonetheless. :love4:

Which flies in the face of democracy.

I’m confused—we’re having a conversation about the Supreme Court, right?

Not an elected legislative body? A court that’s supposed to make legal decisions?

If democracy means holding on to laws that breach rights and freedoms because the majority voted for them, then democracy seems to be an inappropriate method of government—it needs to be tempered with sober second thought, and with a constitution that vests in an institution (i.e., the Supreme Court as an instrument of Parliament) the authority to strike laws down when needed.

The Charter be damned, it hasn't been ratified by the whole country. Some Legislation predates the Charter.

The Charter was passed by the Parliament of Canada, the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and was enacted by Her Majesty The Queen of Canada. Whether or not Québec signed it, it remains our Charter nonetheless and is no less constitutional as a result. Why would you want a Supreme Court to be more concerned about voters than the law? It sounds like you simpy dislike the concept of justice to start with.

 

[FiveParadox]

They effectively altered legislation, against the expressed will of the people. That is undemocratic period...

The legislation contravened the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Courts are responsible for striking down laws that contravene that same Charter.

Courts struck down said legislation (because it contravened the Charter).

It sounds to me like the process went exactly as it should.

And I should mention, the House of Commons re-enforced and respected these legal decisions by passing through democratic means the Civil Marriage Act.

 

[Niflmir]

It is also not a legislative body, yet it has over stepped its bounds and formed or manipulated legislation, against the will of the people.

As I have proved to you in the past, it has over stepped its bounds, made ridiculous rulings and been out of step with the values of Canadians for decades, and getting worse.

Why not, the SCoC is doing the House's job.

Pass that doobie over here. I definitely wanna try what you're smoking.

The very first section in the charter of rights gives the government the power to overrule the charter simply by expressly stating so. If they (the government) didn't want the judges to interpret the law they could simply state that the new laws supercede the constitution. They don't do that. Like it or not, the judges are doing their job.

In fact, if you read much of the Hansard, you will see the members of the CBA complain about various laws and how the laws will face a constitutional challenge. It is the job of the house to ensure that new laws will pass constitutional challenge, but typically the MP's are so lazy--even in the face of evidence--they just pass it and let the courts figure it out. In the end all that matters is that the public thinks that you are "tough on crime" even if, in fact, you have ensured that crime will become worse.

 

[CDNBear]

“[T]he likes of [me]”?! I’m hurt! :lol: But I love you nonetheless. :love4:

I knew you were into Bear. We're cuddly, I get that, you can't help it, lol.

I’m confused—we’re having a conversation about the Supreme Court, right?

Well actually it was about the nannystaters crying about Harpo not wandering about the world and demanding our laws be applied there. But it swung into the SCoC and here we are.

Not an elected legislative body? A court that’s supposed to make legal decisions?

Sure, as they see fit and by their interpretation only. Hence why there is a demand for them to be elected. Not everyone enjoys a single unelected body, changing laws and legislation.

If democracy means holding on to laws that breach rights and freedoms because the majority voted for them, then democracy seems to be an inappropriate method of government—it needs to be tempered with sober second thought, and with a constitution that vests in an institution (i.e., the Supreme Court as an instrument of Parliament) the authority to strike laws down when needed.

And vests power, beyond their skill level obviously.

The Charter was passed by the Parliament of Canada, the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and was enacted by Her Majesty The Queen of Canada. Whether or not Québec signed it, it remains our Charter nonetheless and is no less constitutional as a result. Why would you want a Supreme Court to be more concerned about voters than the law? It sounds like you simpy dislike the concept of justice to start with.

Your point? An entire province withheld. Thus making it not fully ratified by the country.

Besides that, the SCoC interprets that mere piece of paper by its unelected standard. That is the crux of the issue.

 

[CDNBear]

The legislation contravened the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

By their interpretation.

Courts are responsible for striking down laws that contravene that same Charter.

:roll:

Courts struck down said legislation (because it contravened the Charter).

Against the obvious will of the people. And the Charter is flaw to boot.

It sounds to me like the process went exactly as it should.

Bias?

And I should mention, the House of Commons re-enforced and respected these legal decisions by passing through democratic means the Civil Marriage Act.

:roll:, ya it took the courts to get them to do it. They didn't do it because they wanted to.

Pass that doobie over here. I definitely wanna try what you're smoking.

**** you *******.
Moderator Edit

The very first section in the charter of rights gives the government the power to overrule the charter simply by expressly stating so. If they (the government) didn't want the judges to interpret the law they could simply state that the new laws supercede the constitution. They don't do that. Like it or not, the judges are doing their job.

Against the will of the people.

In fact, if you read much of the Hansard, you will see the members of the CBA complain about various laws and how the laws will face a constitutional challenge. It is the job of the house to ensure that new laws will pass constitutional challenge, but typically the MP's are so lazy--even in the face of evidence--they just pass it and let the courts figure it out. In the end all that matters is that the public thinks that you are "tough on crime" even if, in fact, you have ensured that crime will become worse.

:roll:

Miss the point much?

I don't think you need any more dope.

 

[FiveParadox]

The fact that Supreme Court justices are unelected works to the nation’s advantage—our justices can be more concerned with the law than with voters. Were our honourable justices ever to be tempering legal arguments with concerns about what the majority would say, then we would no longer have a justice system, we would have some sort of revenge tribunal. It is absolutely key that our justices are selected based on their merits as officers of judicial interpretation, and not whether they are popular or voteable.

We already have representative democracy through the House of Commons—and it performs its functions as it should, with the complementary roles played by our other institutions ensuring that the best decisions for Canada are made and executed and that we have peace, order and good government. Such a strategy is the foundation of Canada’s Government and constitutional structure, and it is a model for success.

The ‘will of the people’ is irrelevant when it comes to the administration of justice as prescribed by law.

 

[Niflmir]

Against the will of the people.

No, by the will of the government. The <democratic> government. But nice knee jerking. Feel free to baww more.

 

[VanIsle]

I think the Charter was put together by a bunch of lawyers who carefully worded it so that it was easy to MIS-interpret it and easy enough to fight it.

 

[CDNBear]

The fact that Supreme Court justices are unelected works to the nation’s advantage—our justices can be more concerned with the law than with voters.

I disagree. This is the basis of our differing opinions. I believe in majority rule. You don't.

I believe in one law for all, you don't.

I believe in the traditions and moral standards that built this Nation, you don't.

None of that is meant offensively 5P.

Were our honourable justices ever to be tempering legal arguments with concerns about what the majority would say, then we would no longer have a justice system, we would have some sort of revenge tribunal.

You're thinking completely in criminal law. They have disfigured this nation as well.

It is absolutely key that our justices are selected based on their merits as officers of judicial interpretation, and not whether they are popular or voteable.

Again, I disagree.

We already have representative democracy through the House of Commons—and it performs its functions as it should, with the complementary roles played by our other institutions ensuring that the best decisions for Canada are made and executed and that we have peace, order and good government.

:lol:, no we don't, but it's cute that you think so.

Such a strategy is the foundation of Canada’s Government and constitutional structure, and it is a model for success.

Right up until it's used against us.

The ‘will of the people’ is irrelevant when it comes to the administration of justice as prescribed by law.

And that there is the foundation of the very real problems facing this Nation, and will be its very downfall.

 

[CDNBear]

No, by the will of the government. The <democratic> government. But nice knee jerking. Feel free to baww more.

Another one that thinks the Gov't of Canada actually functions for the good or will of the people...

:lol:

Just finish another hit off that bong did ya?