The Legacy of Pierre Trudeau

[talloola]

God said it, you just weren't listening, Tonnington, and this constitution, as applied, makes absolutely no allowance for God.. or natural law, which accepts Him as its Creator. Before marriage was a civil institution it was sacred one, and He doesn't want it turned into an absurdity. In that way the Charter, or at least the way it is being interpreted, is a document of amazing arrogance in its assertion that man's (okay humans', to be politically correct) powers of intellect in fact supersede those of that which created him.. as manifested in those beliefs that spawned and sustained the society we live in.

The Charter reflects the Deist bent of its model in the U.S. Constitution.. but has been applied in an even more aggressively anti theistic (atheistic) way. There's no equal justice before the law the way the Charter is being applied. Its application is blatantly biased towards new age, post structural, post Christian 'morality'. Something, that in the 2000 years of Western Civilization has only gotten real ascendancy in the last 30 years.

Parliament is actually not bound by the Judiciary's interpretation of Charter. It is empowered to make laws primarily in the best interests of Canada, regardless of what the courts say, through the use of the NWC and the consultation of people of Canada. It is the courts that feel they are too august to be bound by any consultation with their 'inferiors'. The courts now reign from a world of self contained sophistry, beyond good and evil; far too proud to be constrained by responsibility to a 'figment of the primitive imagination' that the less enlightened call God. It is a franchise of absolute power they have been deeded by default of Parliament and paraphrasing Lord Acton, they have been corrupted, absolutely.

The sad sack lot of parliamentarians we have now, have not the wherewithal or gristle to do stand in their way. They allow themselves to be led the courts, who have, in many cases proven themselves to be complete dolts in recent years. We have moved into a realm of the total conceit of these courts.. and we are in a death spiral as a society because of it. The media, the educational establishment has unwaveringly proselytized this brave new world to the point where anyone who speaks against it is subject to ridicule, banishment, if not imprisonment... yet.

I frankly expect a civilizational collapse of the West at this rate, and a new Dark Age.. like, but much more catastrophic than that which followed the fall of the Pax Romana .. with massive depopulation, retreat of technology, incessant conflict, subsistence economies.. here, in North America and Europe.. spanning centuries.

I expect we'll be fully involved with that, within our lifetimes. We are seeing repeated shocks now that presage a series of mammoth destructive events in the economy, and in society in general.. it's all interrelated. The glue that has bonded us is dissolving.

In our country it doesn't matter what anyone thinks 'god' said or didn't say, it has no
bearing on the decisions regarding fairness to the people/citizens.

It is proper that our government recognizes all of the people, and if religious
groups were allowed to thrust their 'unfair' rules on those they don't agree with,
we would be no better off than iran/iraq/or other islamic countries, who
degrade and belittle any citizen who doesn't follow the majority and obey the
'religious' rule of the country.

There has to be a fair and balanced decision in government so that the citizen
can live a 'free' life, within the boundaries of the law, and be happy with whatever
lifestyle he/she chooses.

And, if that lifestyle bothers anyone , they should mind their own business, and
not pry, because of their 'narrow' views of life, and live their own lives in the
manner they choose, without meddling.

 

[coldstream]

What that doesn't take into account, talloola, it that the modern paradigm of 'humanism', which your posts express, has become every bit as dogmatic, convention seeking, punishing of heresies, ruthless and evangelical as any Christian church.. in fact more zealous than any messianic Christianity has been for a long while. We are well on our way to becoming as dictatorial as any Muslim regime, in defense of a form of radical secularism, that has become codified into an orthodox doctrine. Our society has become intoxicated with a form of carnal, idolatrous puritanism.

 

[Risus]

I used to be a admirer of PET. I admired his economic nationalism. He was really the last PM who had a strong vision of Canada as a sovereign, centralized nation rather than the fragmented parts run by provincial potentates, or by international financial interests, that it has degenerated into.

His legacy, of course, was to primarily the The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has proved to be the most divisive document ever put forward in the this country. It has made Parliament an impotent poodle at the beck and call of an unelected, intellectually inadequate judiciary (no better example of this it there than our utter mediocrity of a Chief Justice in Beverly McLachlin) who have bestowed on themselves the role of Lord High Protectors of Canadian social values.

It proves that those who predicted social upheaval and disassembly were prescient. A Charter like this in a Parliamentary system with out proper checks and balances on the judiciary will turn it into a wild beast, which will turn on its master.

All cultural and moral (especially Christian) memory has been lost. We are left with unrestricted abortion, homosexual 'marriage', rabid Human Rights Tribunals. Unfortunately the country is going to hell in a hand basket.. and Trudeau is, in no small part, to blame.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has destroyed the country...

 

[missile]

Due to his influence,I still hate effete intellectual snobsIDion kinda reminds me of him that way,too.:x

 

[Risus]

Due to his influence,I still hate effete intellectual snobsIDion kinda reminds me of him that way,too.:x

LOL, dion is definitely NOT an intellectual...

 

[dj03]

The NWC can be used on ALL sections of the Charter. It cannot be used on sections of the Constitution which define separation of powers between the provinces and federal government, realms of privileges, powers and limitations of powers of the branches of government defined in its structural clauses. In theory, but not practice, Parliament can assert its sovereignty on all aspects of social institutions and conventions that have been discussed here.. such as marriage, that are within its realm of privilege.

Tonington is correct, the notwithstanding clause can only be used on some sections of the Charter:

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

Again, it affects the fundamental freedoms section which is troublesome, but it can't be used on all sections of the Charter.

There is also a 5 year limitation on any such use, which of course can be extended at the termination for another 5 years.

 

[dj03]

What does "principles that recognize the supremacy of God " mean?

It means different things to different people but from a legal perspective case law has determined it does not override freedom of conscience (which has been defined legally as beliefs of conscience not motivated by a religious factor).

Basically, an early draft of the Charter mentioned "with the help of God" but future versions did not include any mention of God. Some people...actually, a lot of people, got upset by that and wrote letters insisting God be put back in. Of all subjects regarding the Charter, this is the one Chretien said they got the most mail about.

 

[coldstream]

dj03

Tonington is correct, the notwithstanding clause can only be used on some sections of the Charter:

____________________________________________________________________

These are what those sections contain, essentially everything except democratic rights (the right to vote) mobility rights (the right to move anywhere in Canada) and language rights (the right to speak English or French in stipulated jurisdictions). None of these areas have produced any of the egregious excesses of the Courts into areas of Parliamentary (and thereby popular) privilege as those covered by the notwithstanding clause..


Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

Legal Rights​

[SIZE=-2]Life, liberty and security of person[/SIZE] 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. [SIZE=-2]Search or seizure[/SIZE] 8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. [SIZE=-2]Detention or imprisonment[/SIZE] 9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. [SIZE=-2]Arrest or detention[/SIZE] 10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful. [SIZE=-2]Proceedings in criminal and penal matters[/SIZE] 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
b) to be tried within a reasonable time;
c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;
d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;
g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;
h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and
i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment. [SIZE=-2]Treatment or punishment[/SIZE] 12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. [SIZE=-2]Self-crimination[/SIZE] 13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence. [SIZE=-2]Interpreter[/SIZE] 14. A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.

Equality Rights​

[SIZE=-2] Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law[/SIZE] 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. [SIZE=-2]Affirmative action programs[/SIZE] (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

 

[coldstream]

Those clauses cover everything we were talking about.

And of course my point is not to defend the Charter (as anything BUT a statement of principles)... but to note that the Courts have used it as a vehicle to usurp Parliamentary prerogative in defining how all of these sections are to be applied as legislation.. by default of Parliament's DUTY to use the NWS to apply proper oversight and accountability to the Courts. I'd say that supports my case.

By allowing the Courts to impose a radical post-structural agenda to fundamental freedoms, legal rights and (especially) equality rights, and failing to impose on them an accountability to the Canadian electorate, they have managed to destroy the fundamental cohesion and coherence of Canada's governmental structure. It's a case of malfeasance bordering on treason by the Courts and Parliament.

As to the time limits, it's another failure of the Charter.. limiting the legitimate and permanent rights of the Canadian people to govern themselves.. in favour of an non-elected and non-responsible judicial priesthood.

My case is that we never needed a Charter in the first place. Parliamentary systems work on an assumption of good will and of peace, order & good government through supervision by the electorate of its representatives. By placing an obtuse and irresponsible element between those two, we have begun a process of disassembly of our nation. It would be difficult to still call what we have now, a democracy.

Nothing has been as divisive as this document to Canadian unity. It has clogged our courts with frivolous challenges, made us a nation of whiners, claiming greater allegiance to some tribe of victimization than to Canada itself. It has struck at the core of our integrity as a nation. It has been a disaster for our country.

So thanx for nothing... and fuddle-duddle you, Pierre Trudeau.

 

[Kreskin]

note that the Courts have used it as a vehicle to usurp Parliamentary prerogative in defining how all of these sections are to be applied as legislation..

Who else is in a better position to define these sections than the Supreme Court of Canada?

 

[coldstream]

:shock: Gawd, kreskin, is there anybody LESS qualified to define the destiny our country.. than a bunch of grasping, mealy minded, sophistry ridden, morally dissolute, power drunk.. sorcerers' coven of lawyers. :roll: Look at their record, the SCOC is a disgrace, as are the majority of their colleagues in lower courts!!

Shakespeare was right when it came to lawyers!

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
2 Henry VI, 4.2.59

 

[Kreskin]

:shock: Gawd, kreskin, is there anyone less qualified than a bunch of grasping, mealy minded, power drunk, new age lawyers. :roll: Look at their record!!

Shakespeare was right when it came to lawyers!

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
2 Henry VI, 4.2.59

Yes, everyone else is less qualified and their record is pretty good.

 

[Kreskin]

Am I understanding this correctly? The Charter was a mistake because it results in the Supreme Court overturning laws that ban stuff like homosexuality?

 

[coldstream]

No, the laws criminalizing homosexuality were removed by Parliament, the elected representatives of the Canadian People, prior to there ever being a Charter.

BUT, The Charter was used by the SCOC and lower courts to FORCE the Canadian Parliament to rescind its legal definition retaining the original character of marriage, the will of the Canadian people, under DURESS.. with the implicit threat that it would impose Homosexual Marriage on the country itself, unless Parliament acted. The arrogance of the Supreme Court in the demand, and cowardice of Parliament in the capitulation was BREATHTAKING. It is certainly not limited to that.

The entire process of Charter challenges is fragmenting the country. It is appalling.

 

[Kreskin]

Yes.

Thanks.

 

[coldstream]

You caught my answer before i re-edited, kreskin. But, that's okay, sometimes the simplest answer is the best, and that is Yes. :smile:

 

[Kreskin]

No, the laws criminalizing homosexuality were removed by Parliament, the elected representatives of the Canadian People, prior to there ever being a Charter.

BUT, The Charter was used by the SCOC and lower courts to FORCE the Canadian Parliament to rescind its ruling retaining the original character of marriage, the will of the Canadian people, under DURESS.. with the implicit threat that it would impose Homosexual Marriage on the country itself, unless Parliament acted. The arrogance of the Supreme Court in the demand, and cowardice of Parliament in the capitulation was BREATHTAKING. It is certainly not limited to that.

The entire process of Charter challenges is fragmenting the country. It is appalling.

The overall majority of Canadians approve of same sex marriage. The group that least supports it is the older generation. The older generation is primarily the demographic who sits on parliament hill. The younger generation is the group most likely to use the right.

Not only does the SCOC support same sex rights, so do the majority of Canadians.

 

[coldstream]

Then let's have a referendum, on the issue with an open debate.. and hold Parliament responsible for enacting the results. I don't trust polls, not with the rabidly new age media massaging public opinion and framing the question, the sample and the results to their purposes. We both know how it would turn out. In every plebiscite on the issue of homosexual marriage in the U.S. the electorate has OVERWHELMINGLY defeated it.. by margins of 4 or 5 to 1.

In November in California they are going to have a ballot initiative on the issue to overturn a ruling enforcing homosexual marriage on the state by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal.. the notoriously liberal appellate court in California. You want to put a wager on how it will turn out, in this urban, cosmopolitan state.. no rural, Bible belt backwater. Most expect the result will massively oppose the court's decision.

The SCOC would loathe this approach, because they know they would get trounced, and it might give Parliament the courage to act in the true best interests of the their constituents and their country. Something that is an anathema to the Court.

You think it'll be different up here, well let's put it to a vote. I'll live by the results of a fair question and a poll supervised be Elections Canada.

 

[Kreskin]

The let's have a referendum, on the issue, with an open debate.. and hold Parliament responsible for enacting the results.. I don't trust polls, not with the rabidly new age media massaging the question, the sample and results to their purposes. We both know how it would turn out. In every plebiscite on the issue of homosexual marriage in the U.S. the electorate has OVERWHELMINGLY defeated it.. by margins of 4 or 5 to 1.

In November is California they are going to have a ballot initiative on the issue to overturn a ruling enforcing homosexual marriage on the state by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal.. the notoriously liberal apellate court in California. You want to put a wage on how it will turn out, in this urban, cosmopolitan state.. no rural, Bible belt backwater. Most expect it will be massively defeated.

You think it'll be different up here, well let's put it to a vote. I'll live by the results.of a fair question and

Well you know what's going to be interesting is that once this older generation moves on to greener pastures there will be a far different electorate. So you better be careful what you wish for.

I'm not interested in tyranny, nor am I interested in living California or Iran or wherever the religious feel life is better than Canada.

p.s. I have yet to hear anyone make a rational argument for banning same sex marriage. Give it a try and let us know how another married couple will damage your own marriage.

 

[Tonington]

I'm afraid the courts now deem God to be of the Cosmic Muffin variety, certainly not on a par with their own sublime wisdom. The result is that they rule as if there is no God.

Yes, we're a secular country. Is that news to you or your ancestors? It shouldn't be. That very attitude of how and why to rule, and it's antithesis is why North America is so great.

As they should rule. Not everyone follows his rules. Some believe in other gods, or none at all. Should they be punished by narrow minded fools like you and again by God in the after life? I can think of some specific bible quotes that call people like you hypocrites.

The NWC can be used on most sections of the Charter. It cannot be used on sections of the Constitution which define separation of powers between the provinces and federal government, realms of privileges, powers and limitations of powers of the branches of government defined in its structural clauses, mobility rights, voting rights, language rights. In theory, but not practice, Parliament can assert its sovereignty on all aspects of social institutions and conventions that have been discussed here.. such as marriage, that are within its realm of privilege.

Right, that's what I said in not so many words. So, now do you understand how this statement:

coldstream says: It is empowered to make laws primarily in the best interests of Canada, regardless of what the courts say, through the use of the NWC and the consultation of people of Canada.

Is actually wrong. Did you Google to find your paraphrase???

and

pot, kettle, black.. the courts are the ones who are in mob rule now, and cast mob 'justice' about now as they see fit.

No, they have to follow the definitions and language of said legislation. If they don't, the chances are pretty good you win your appeal. They can't decide on popular opinion, they decide on the rule of law. Are you honestly trying to say that the Supreme Court is popular?

That's hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At least in my best case, the Parliament is ultimately responsible to the people of Canada to adjudge the iteration between 'theocracy' and chaos in the interests of good government, a stable society and individual freedom.

What do you mean iteration between theocracy and chaos? You're basically saying one is a repitition of another.

So what happens to people like you when some day another religion overtakes Christianity in Canada? Would you be comfortable if they made laws with constricts like those of Sharia Law? I doubt that you would. Enter the protection of our Charter...

None of those limitations apply to the courts, and their moral superiority is without any constraints.. and they have proven, that they are far too mediocre, in character and intellect, to resist the corrupting influence of that type of power.

Ahh, so in other words: if people don't think as you do, they must be below -average intelligent humans.

Keep making your case. It's crap messages like yours that drive people away from your religion in the first place.

You da man! :lol:

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has destroyed the country...

That's funny, because I accessed my bank account, and pumped gas today on my way to work. I bought some beer at the tavern when I got home, and laughed when a mother of four kittens chased a basset hound across the street in a small hamlet in Southern Alberta.

Yup, pretty sure the country is far from destroyed.

dj03

Tonington is correct, the notwithstanding clause can only be used on some sections of the Charter:

____________________________________________________________________

These are what those sections contain, essentially everything except democratic rights (the right to vote) mobility rights (the right to move anywhere in Canada) and language rights (the right to speak English or French in stipulated jurisdictions). None of these areas have produced any of the egregious excesses of the Courts into areas of Parliamentary (and thereby popular) privilege as those covered by the notwithstanding clause..


Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

Legal Rights​

[SIZE=-2]Life, liberty and security of person[/SIZE] 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. [SIZE=-2]Search or seizure[/SIZE] 8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. [SIZE=-2]Detention or imprisonment[/SIZE] 9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. [SIZE=-2]Arrest or detention[/SIZE] 10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful. [SIZE=-2]Proceedings in criminal and penal matters[/SIZE] 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
b) to be tried within a reasonable time;
c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;
d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;
g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;
h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and
i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment. [SIZE=-2]Treatment or punishment[/SIZE] 12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. [SIZE=-2]Self-crimination[/SIZE] 13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence. [SIZE=-2]Interpreter[/SIZE] 14. A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.

Equality Rights​

[SIZE=-2] Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law[/SIZE] 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. [SIZE=-2]Affirmative action programs[/SIZE] (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Thank you for showing us all that you can use an internet browser. Still not willing to admit that our Government does not rule without rules upon themselves, ie What they can and cannot legislate?

Those clauses cover everything we were talking about.

And of course my point is not to defend the Charter (as anything BUT a statement of principles)... but to note that the Courts have used it as a vehicle to usurp Parliamentary prerogative in defining how all of these sections are to be applied as legislation.. by default of Parliament's DUTY to use the NWS to apply proper oversight and accountability to the Courts. I'd say that supports my case.

You would...but you're often wrong. The courts ruled by precedent and the same legal doctrines before the Charter. You think it changed how law is taught and practiced too?

My, you certainly credit Trudeau with much, too much in fact...

By allowing the Courts to impose a radical post-structural agenda to fundamental freedoms, legal rights and (especially) equality rights, and failing to impose on them an accountability to the Canadian electorate, they have managed to destroy the fundamental cohesion and coherence of Canada's governmental structure. It's a case of malfeasance bordering on treason by the Courts and Parliament.

Treason is an defined by an Act of Parliament. So is the Charter.

Would you like some cheese with your whine?

As to the time limits, it's another failure of the Charter.. limiting the legitimate and permanent rights of the Canadian people to govern themselves.. in favour of an non-elected and non-responsible judicial priesthood.

How does that even make sense? Limiting the legitimate permanent rights of Canadians? Those would be the rights given to us in the Charter...the notwithstanding clause suspends them.

That's the funniest thing I've seen all day, or at least read. Forgot about the attacking cat. :lol:

My case is that we never needed a Charter in the first place. Parliamentary systems work on an assumption of good will and of peace, order & good government through supervision by the electorate of its representatives.

Your assumption makes an ass of you. They work through mostly codified rules, and anal/pedantic procedures. That includes frameworks like constitutional law, the interpretation of which, is very narrow.

By placing an obtuse and irresponsible element between those two, we have begun a process of disassembly of our nation. It would be difficult to still call what we have now, a democracy.

So, do you believe democracy exists in any form right now on this planet?

Nothing has been as divisive as this document to Canadian unity.

Yah really. It would be so much better if we had laws from one religion only. Then we could
keep out all new comers so as to keep our monotonous and boring country. :roll:

What rubbish! Keep replying please. I hope lots of lurkers read this stuff! :smile:

:shock: Gawd, kreskin, is there anybody LESS qualified to define our country.. than a bunch of grasping, mealy minded, sophistry ridden, morally dissolute, power drunk.. sorcerers' coven of lawyers. :roll: Look at their record, the SCOC is a disgrace, as are the majority of their colleagues in lower courts!!

I can certainly think of a few people who fit that description, minus the lawyer part...

Shakespeare was right when it came to lawyers!

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
2 Henry VI, 4.2.59

No, that was a Shakespeare character who said that, not Shakespeare himself. He wrote the dialogue. It was Dick the Butcher who said that. Coincidentally he wanted to start a war, and once in power oppress the people through erosion of property rights and other liberties.

I'm not surprised that you would quote something like that.