Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some say wearing a MAGA hat has become, almost like wearing a KKK uniform. It supports all the stuff you mentioned. It's way beyond political views, but major societal ones.
Well, as far as I'm concerned any Trump supporter wearing a MAGA hat in Canada is a provocateur who is committing an act of aggression against Canada.
I would have added “mandatory retirement at age 75 in Canada” to the list of reasons.
I’d never heard of this before:
Quote:
With few exceptions, members of the Canadian judicial community are in the living camp — and have been since 1929. That was the year of the famous “persons case,” when the London-based Imperial Privy Council overruled Canada’s Supreme Court to decide that the word “persons” in our founding document included women.
In the wildly sexist era in which Canada was created, the word “persons” was almost certainly meant to refer to men only — which is why our Supreme Court upheld the “no women” ban. But the British slapped it down, calling the Canadians’ reasoning a “relic of days more barbarous than ours.” The British can’t do that to us anymore, but a “living constitution” precedent was created nonetheless.
I would have added “mandatory retirement at age 75 in Canada” to the list of reasons.
I’d never heard of this before:
I think you National Post
I read this article this morning and found it interesting.
I often wondered though, that if Harper thought his appointees to the SCC, would be partisan? I remember being a bit concerned, but was glad to see that they haven't acted that way.
I often wondered though, that if Harper thought his appointees to the SCC, would be partisan? I remember being a bit concerned, but was glad to see that they haven't acted that way.
One important feature of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) is that it is a general appellate court. Many of the matters before the SCC have nothing to do with politics or the constitution--they are matters of contract law, of wills and estates, of torts, of matters arising from human rights tribunals, and so on. The SCC does hear constitutional matters, but not exclusively; so a general jurist who has proven that he or she can do a just and fair job in all legal matters, is a better choice than someone who is politically partisan. After all, partisanship means nothing when you're deciding a contractual dispute between two private parties, or adjudicating a family dispute over a will.
Contrast that with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). It pretty much only decides constitutional matters--the Gideon decision (Sixth Amendment), the Miranda decision (Fifth Amendment), and Bush v. Gore (Article II, s. 1, if I recall correctly), would be some examples, and there are many, many others. All have something to do with the US Constitution in some way, and nothing to do with private legal disputes (wills, real estate, contracts, etc.). Thus partisanship in the SCOTUS is much more important than it is for the SCC.
Note, however, that a partisan SCOTUS doesn't mean that the doctrine of stare decisis ("like decides like") is done away with--the US is a common-law country, after all, where precedent demands certain decisions be made--but since the only body that can overturn previous SCOTUS decisions, is the current SCOTUS, it makes it easier for the partisans to get their way.
One important feature of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) is that it is a general appellate court. Many of the matters before the SCC have nothing to do with politics or the constitution--they are matters of contract law, of wills and estates, of torts, of matters arising from human rights tribunals, and so on. The SCC does hear constitutional matters, but not exclusively; so a general jurist who has proven that he or she can do a just and fair job in all legal matters, is a better choice than someone who is politically partisan. After all, partisanship means nothing when you're deciding a contractual dispute between two private parties, or adjudicating a family dispute over a will.
Contrast that with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). It pretty much only decides constitutional matters--the Gideon decision (Sixth Amendment), the Miranda decision (Fifth Amendment), and Bush v. Gore (Article II, s. 1, if I recall correctly), would be some examples, and there are many, many others. All have something to do with the US Constitution in some way, and nothing to do with private legal disputes (wills, real estate, contracts, etc.). Thus partisanship in the SCOTUS is much more important than it is for the SCC.
Note, however, that a partisan SCOTUS doesn't mean that the doctrine of stare decisis ("like decides like") is done away with--the US is a common-law country, after all, where precedent demands certain decisions be made--but since the only body that can overturn previous SCOTUS decisions, is the current SCOTUS, it makes it easier for the partisans to get their way.
Chevy; once again a comparison elucidated in a manner even I can understand.
One important feature of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) is that it is a general appellate court. Many of the matters before the SCC have nothing to do with politics or the constitution--they are matters of contract law, of wills and estates, of torts, of matters arising from human rights tribunals, and so on. The SCC does hear constitutional matters, but not exclusively; so a general jurist who has proven that he or she can do a just and fair job in all legal matters, is a better choice than someone who is politically partisan. After all, partisanship means nothing when you're deciding a contractual dispute between two private parties, or adjudicating a family dispute over a will.
Contrast that with the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). It pretty much only decides constitutional matters--the Gideon decision (Sixth Amendment), the Miranda decision (Fifth Amendment), and Bush v. Gore (Article II, s. 1, if I recall correctly), would be some examples, and there are many, many others. All have something to do with the US Constitution in some way, and nothing to do with private legal disputes (wills, real estate, contracts, etc.). Thus partisanship in the SCOTUS is much more important than it is for the SCC.
Note, however, that a partisan SCOTUS doesn't mean that the doctrine of stare decisis ("like decides like") is done away with--the US is a common-law country, after all, where precedent demands certain decisions be made--but since the only body that can overturn previous SCOTUS decisions, is the current SCOTUS, it makes it easier for the partisans to get their way.
You're quite welcome, Nat. Glad I could help. Note also that it is much more difficult for a partisan SCC/SCOTUS judge to get their way than some of our American friends would have you believe.
Bringing a matter before a court of appeal requires extensive legal research to support your position--for or against the issue that the court is being asked to decide--and only precedent cases, statutes, and the constitution (if applicable) are allowed. Only in a very few instances, are secondary sources allowed (for example, Peter Hogg is the leading constitutional scholar in Canada, and his written remarks tend to be suitable for the SCC, and that's only if the SCC decides to allow them). But otherwise, it is only cases, statutes, and the constitution.
You then prepare a document known as a factum, which contains your reasoning and the authorities (cases, statutes, etc.) that support that reasoning and your conclusion, which will basically be a pitch as to why you should win. If you are the appellant, you submit your factum to the court and your opponent first. Your opponent (i.e. the respondent) then drafts their own factum, attacking your arguments, and submits it to the court and you. An oral hearing is then scheduled before the appellate court.
This is the hard part. The judges will have read both sides' facta (don'tcha love legal Latin? ), and they are prepared with questions. You have prepared a talk summarizing your position, with authorities, but your talk will be interrupted by the judges, as their questions arise from both your factum and your talk. But if you are well-prepared, you will be ready with answers. Note that there is a time limit on your talk, so you have to think fast on your feet to answer the bench's questions, make your pitch, and reach your conclusion.
The SCC/SCOTUS will not render a decision immediately. They'll take their time, talk about it, and publish a written decision at some point in the future. It is possible to have a "split decision," where one or more judges dissents from the majority decision, but the majority's decision must be based on logical and sound legal reasoning. Written and published reasons are required.
And here's the important part: an agreeing or dissenting judge's decision cannot be based on "Well, I'm conservative, so I'll ignore all the liberal arguments, and the statutes, and the precedent cases; and just go with the conservative point of view." If that's the only reason a judge has for rejecting one side's argument, and he or she cannot make a logical legal argument to support his or her position, well, then, I'd say his or her reputation as a capable and competent jurist won't last long.
I cannot speak to the SCOTUS, Nat, but I suspect it's the same. A conservative judge will have to provide logical and sound legal reasoning, in writing, to indicate why he or she does not support a liberal appeal, and vice versa. But all of the above is why you did not need to fear Harper appointees--and why anti-Trumpers need not fear Gorsuch or Kavanagh--because they have to play by the rules, by precedent, by statute, by constitution; and if they disagree with a position, they will have to provide, in writing, sound legal reasoning as to why they disagree. It is not always easy to do so, especially in the face of well-researched, well-argued, and compelling arguments to the contrary.
You're quite welcome, Nat. Glad I could help. Note also that it is much more difficult for a partisan SCC/SCOTUS judge to get their way than some of our American friends would have you believe.
Bringing a matter before a court of appeal requires extensive legal research to support your position--for or against the issue that the court is being asked to decide--and only precedent cases, statutes, and the constitution (if applicable) are allowed. Only in a very few instances, are secondary sources allowed (for example, Peter Hogg is the leading constitutional scholar in Canada, and his written remarks tend to be suitable for the SCC, and that's only if the SCC decides to allow them). But otherwise, it is only cases, statutes, and the constitution.
You then prepare a document known as a factum, which contains your reasoning and the authorities (cases, statutes, etc.) that support that reasoning and your conclusion, which will basically be a pitch as to why you should win. If you are the appellant, you submit your factum to the court and your opponent first. Your opponent (i.e. the respondent) then drafts their own factum, attacking your arguments, and submits it to the court and you. An oral hearing is then scheduled before the appellate court.
This is the hard part. The judges will have read both sides' facta (don'tcha love legal Latin? ), and they are prepared with questions. You have prepared a talk summarizing your position, with authorities, but your talk will be interrupted by the judges, as their questions arise from both your factum and your talk. But if you are well-prepared, you will be ready with answers. Note that there is a time limit on your talk, so you have to think fast on your feet to answer the bench's questions, make your pitch, and reach your conclusion.
The SCC/SCOTUS will not render a decision immediately. They'll take their time, talk about it, and publish a written decision at some point in the future. It is possible to have a "split decision," where one or more judges dissents from the majority decision, but the majority's decision must be based on logical and sound legal reasoning. Written and published reasons are required.
And here's the important part: an agreeing or dissenting judge's decision cannot be based on "Well, I'm conservative, so I'll ignore all the liberal arguments, and the statutes, and the precedent cases; and just go with the conservative point of view." If that's the only reason a judge has for rejecting one side's argument, and he or she cannot make a logical legal argument to support his or her position, well, then, I'd say his or her reputation as a capable and competent jurist won't last long.
I cannot speak to the SCOTUS, Nat, but I suspect it's the same. A conservative judge will have to provide logical and sound legal reasoning, in writing, to indicate why he or she does not support a liberal appeal, and vice versa. But all of the above is why you did not need to fear Harper appointees--and why anti-Trumpers need not fear Gorsuch or Kavanagh--because they have to play by the rules, by precedent, by statute, by constitution; and if they disagree with a position, they will have to provide, in writing, sound legal reasoning as to why they disagree. It is not always easy to do so, especially in the face of well-researched, well-argued, and compelling arguments to the contrary.
In regards to SCOTUS, one would hope, but then again, a lot of things happening in the US were unthinkable a few years ago.
There are rumblings about SCOTUS becoming more partisan. That is a concern. I have more faith in the SCC.
RVs and campers are soon going to have to find a new place to park overnight in Whitehorse, instead of the Walmart parking lot.
Anika Malik, director of corporate affairs for Walmart Canada, confirmed in an email to CBC that the Whitehorse store will end overnight parking this summer "following several customer complaints about unsafe parking conditions and debris in the parking lot."
In regards to SCOTUS, one would hope, but then again, a lot of things happening in the US were unthinkable a few years ago.
I just don't care anymore. The whole system is in shambles. I'm sick of everything that is going on. As soon as I arrive in Fairbanks and sell this truck, I'm leaving for good.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
