quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Then why have elected politicians at all if what they enact into law isnt recognized? Let's just appoint judges and forgo elections. Perhaps we could rename them from judges to chairmen. After all, the canadian flag is red!

because politicians do dumb things and judges are there to prevent that stuff.

c'mon jay. you're all about protecting rights of the minority, right?

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 So you are comfortable with UNELECTED judges making new laws? Im sure not! One person's opinion against a government of ELECTED representatives who represent the people is not my definition of freedom and democracy and the will of the people.

cmon it's all about checks and balances my friend, can't let one branch of govt get too powerful. Besides, I feel judges are "indirectly" elected because the person who selects them was elected by the people. Yes, that's theory and it's not as simple as that but I'm just leveling with you.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Then why have elected politicians at all if what they enact into law isnt recognized? Let's just appoint judges and forgo elections. Perhaps we could rename them from judges to chairmen. After all, the canadian flag is red!

ok

quote:

Originally posted by EvilTree because politicians do dumb things and judges are there to prevent that stuff. c'mon jay. you're all about protecting rights of the minority, right?

Politicians and judges do stupid things all the time. There are already checks and balances. It's called House of Commons and the senate. Judges are there to UPHOLD the law. NOT create them! And if the electorate is not happy with the law there are several ways to have it changed without having a judge impose it.

Allowing judges to create laws in canada has set us on a very dangerous path

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree cmon it's all about checks and balances my friend, can't let one branch of govt get too powerful. Besides, I feel judges are "indirectly" elected because the person who selects them was elected by the people. Yes, that's theory and it's not as simple as that but I'm just leveling with you. ok

The answer is to have an elected senate as the balance and let lawmakers do the job of lawmaking and judges do the job of judging.

So you are criticizing the common law system. lol wrong country! The system is tried and true globally. Good luck trying to make an impact with your perspectives. Not happening.

In a slight defense of the police officer. He may have been going by instinct. Who knows if the accused was giving off a guilty vibe. The cop chose to search the vehicle and by doing so he found illegal substance.

This is a very unusual case. but by not trying him, what example are we giving?

Coke is illegal and doing it or dealing it carries consequences if ur ever caught.

This article does not give the cop's statement. I for one, understand initial instinct and this instinct is something that has helped me make serious decisions.

The cop searched illegally. And maybe he should be criticized....


In saying this.... I go by principal....

BUT LAW IS LAW...

And because cops are so unforgiving in every sense, and they find the need to stick to the law even when it is unmoral.

This evidence should NOT be tried.

(sorry for my rant and my indecisiveness) I close with me last statement.

___________________
Everything happens for a reason

Last edited by MissK on Feb-18-2008 at 03:12

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree So you are criticizing the common law system. lol wrong country! The system is tried and true globally. Good luck trying to make an impact with your perspectives. Not happening.

Most countries do not allow judges to MAKE laws. They rule based on the law already written. This was the case in Canada until the charter in 1982. The problem here isnt judges imposing their decision. The problem is that the charter allows them to basically rewrite any law that they dont agree with.

Such as gay marriage. No matter what your opinion, you cant deny that this should have been held to vote in the house of commons by ELECTED officials instead of being imposed by some judges who felt it was their moral duty. A vote in parliament should have taken place in order for this to pass.

For the record, it would have passed and when it was finally held to vote in 2006 it was passed. But by then it was already a court imposed law anyways.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 when it was finally held to vote in 2006 it was passed. But by then it was already a court imposed law anyways.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree What came first, the chicken or the egg?

you obviously dont understand the point of having an elected parliament as opposed to being dictated to by unelected officials.

What should always come first is parliament.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 you obviously dont understand the point of having an elected parliament as opposed to being dictated to by unelected officials.

Right, I support dictatorships.

ps. u missed my point that whether the law was passed through legislature or ruled on by judiciary first is irrelevant, as long as the Canadian values were enforced (especially demonstrated by your gay marriage example). My comment had nothing to do with whether parliament was established before the court system; it had to do with the same outcome coming from two different sources. Where it came from first (i.e. chicken or egg) is moot.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Politicians and judges do stupid things all the time. There are already checks and balances. It's called House of Commons and the senate. Judges are there to UPHOLD the law. NOT create them! And if the electorate is not happy with the law there are several ways to have it changed without having a judge impose it. Allowing judges to create laws in canada has set us on a very dangerous path

Judges set the law in all common law traditions. Its not new, and its not specific to Canada.

Edit: I gotta read all the rest of the thread before I post... The judidiciary is equally important as the legislature is the point the Fahad is aptly making. It's interesting that you bring up the case of the Constitution Jay, as judicial discrestion is explicitly written into it. "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society..." Do you expect Parliament or the Senate to make this demonstration?

Last edited by TO guy on Feb-19-2008 at 18:20