Two other things I forgot to mention:

1. The notion of judges in an elected judicial system doing "electioneering" and altering their decisions to get votes is pure FUD. One might as well use that logic to advocate a dictatorship in government because it is essentially the same argument. To this date I have never heard of a judge mounting an ad campaign - they simply stand on their track records. Simply put, as a voter speaking to other voters, nihilism is not an admirable personality trait in a participatory democracy; if you truly have so little trust in mankind then you ought to move to China or North Korea, where you'll never have to worry about voting for the wrong guy.

2. I may have missed something in the debate, but I never recall Harper saying that he would actually use the notwithstanding clause. I believe he said that as a part of our constitution, it's necessary in order to maintain a balance of power - this was his response to Martin's suggestion to remove or nullify the clause and give judges ultimate power.

How many times do liberals need to be reminded that regardless of his personal beliefs, Harper simply doesn't have the authority to magically revoke all the gay marriages and other gay rights. He would still need a majority vote in Parliament and he would still need support of the people via a referendum; and *if* that were to happen and Harper were able to garner that much support, don't you think it's possible that the Supreme Court and Martin's Liberals overstepped their bounds and went about it in the wrong way? If such a strong majority of elected officials and ordinary Joes are still upset about the decision (which I maintain is not the case), perhaps our country is not ready to accept the idea. It's immaterial anyway, though - Martin only started supporting gay rights when he found out from the polls that it was a popular issue and would help to get him re-elected; ergo, it's highly unlikely that a referendum on gay marriage would elicit a "no" response.

I don't believe there was ever any significant movement to repeal the emancipation of slaves, women's voting rights, or black voting rights. These changes made it through the legislation process and were, for the most part, widely accepted. This image of judges and special interest groups as crusaders of justice fighting for the rights of the weak and helpless is genuine romanticism; no such truth exists in reality, and the best way to fight for "minority rights" is to spread education and awareness to the majority. It's worked in the past and will continue to work in the future.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Two other things I forgot to mention: 2. I may have missed something in the debate, but I never recall Harper saying that he would actually use the notwithstanding clause. I believe he said that as a part of our constitution, it's necessary in order to maintain a balance of power - this was his response to Martin's suggestion to remove or nullify the clause and give judges ultimate power.

Incredibly, Paul Martin advocated using the notwithstanding clause not too long ago.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/12/18/martin031218

quote:

Prime Minister Paul Martin said he would override the Supreme Court if it ordered churches to marry same-sex couples. Martin told the CBC Radio's As it Happens that he would invoke the constitution's notwithstanding clause if the court ruled that all religious groups must marry same-sex couples. The court has been asked whether the Charter of Rights and Freedoms freedom of religion guarantees protect churches from being compelled to marry gay and lesbian couples.

As it happens, the Supreme Court ruled that churches shouldn't be compelled to perform those services. However, had the decision gone the other way, what would Martin have done?

The hypocrisy of Martin and the Lieberal Party is simply unbelievable.


By the way, I think that would have been a legitimate use of S.33.

___________________
Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) || ID PLZ! PVD ID!!!
Disco and classical had sex while watching a sci-fi movie. Their child: trance.

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf Incredibly, Paul Martin advocated using the notwithstanding clause not too long ago. http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/12/18/martin031218 As it happens, the Supreme Court ruled that churches shouldn't be compelled to perform those services. However, had the decision gone the other way, what would Martin have done? The hypocrisy of Martin and the Lieberal Party is simply unbelievable. By the way, I think that would have been a legitimate use of S.33.

wow..thats unbelievable...im so glad these idiots are about to be out of office.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Wow, how did I know you'd bring up gay rights? Simply because the result of the Supreme Court's "decision" was good (or should I say, good in your eyes) does not mean that the decision-making process was legitimate. Major societal reforms throughout history have ALWAYS taken place in the legislature, not the courts. Judges have repeatedly ILLEGALLY extended that provision, regardless of how favourable you deem the decisions to be. um...so I brought up gay rights...that detracts from my point? nice distraction. well, that's your opinion that they've "illegally" extended that provision, repeatedly, to cover areas such as employment, taxation, benefits, etc. And do the judges not have a moral "flavour of the month?" What makes their moral fiber superior to anybody else's in the country? who said they have a "superior" moral fibre? you're twisting my words. yes, the public is more fickle than the courts...right now, it's this "gun epidemic" (of which there isn't one, we have a long standing gang and drug problem, not a gun problem)...and we'll have a new topic du jour soon, I'm sure...like when ONE case makes headlines, it will be kiddie porn epidemic...then ONE kid will commit suicide at school and "at risk youth" will be the new "epidemic". The media influences the public far more than it does judicial decision making, I'd like to think...is that unreasonable to say? Majority of people supported the swinger's club decision as well as many other "establishments that fall outside of what the average person likes". You're confusing public opinion with that of special interest groups (including right-wing groups, of course). Again, societal reforms have always been done by the legislature and that is the way it should be. It is not up to the courts to listen to special interest groups and decide these matters. A Supreme Court judge's sole sources should be the constitution and legal precedent. The Constitutional documents acknowledge that they are not complete but that the appropriate mechanism for dealing with gray areas is either (a) a constitutional amendment or (b) the notwithstanding clause. Judges making up the law on the spot is NOT a valid path through the gray areas. but they haven't "made up the law" in many of these cases. They've said that the traditional defintion of marriage is uncontitutional and the gov't then put forth amending legislation, just as you are demanding, no? (whether you agree with it being pushed through Parliment or not is irrelevant, the fact is that the Supreme Court did not "make up the law"). with the swingers club, did the court not simply comment on what amounts to "indecency" since it is not defined in the law? they stated that indecency isn't merely what society does not like, but also what harms society. U *strongly* support the harm principle (i.e. harm to others) being a central determinent into what ought to be legal and illegal. The court found that the swingers club does not harm society...they didn't "make up the law" here either. They addressed this limitation with the amendment process and the notwithstanding clause. If neither the elected government nor a majority of the people can agree that a change should be made, what right do judges have (who are supposed to YIELD to the constitution, not rewrite it) to take matters into their own hands? Again, who says that the opinion of 9 unelected judges is any more valid than this "ever-changing parliament" or "fickle public opinion?" You're advocating oligarchy and almost fascism - that neither the people nor their elected representatives truly know what's best for society, and the only people who do are an elite group of high-ranking judges and the minority groups they listen to. ok...so you're advocating for "majority rules" with respect to all aspects of the law and its application? It's not always about agreeing that a change should be made...it could be that the majority doesn't want a change...it could be that they are apathetic and don't care to enact change...it doesn't follow that this is acceptable, does it? If this were the case, minorities would ALWAYS have to rely on a benoevolent majority who not only agree to help them, but can be bothered to help them? It's got nothing to do with faith or lack thereof. Judges are there to interpret the constitution, not rewrite it. It's that simple. The power of judges is to strike down laws that are not in accordance with the written constitution, and this is indeed an important power that they should not be denied; however, it should not be confused with striking down laws that are not in accordance with their own personal opinions, which is what we've been seeing in recent years. I disagree. I don't think it's the judges "pesonal opionions" that necessarily guided decisions on sexual oreintation, for example. That's an unfair oversimplification of their decision making process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egan_v._Canada If the flavour of the Charter provision is to protect against discrimination on the basis of a person's unalterable state of being (i.e. race, sex, etc), and given that the Charter allows for additional criteria, why is it "making up the law" or "illegaly extend that provision" when they called for sexual orientation to be read in? I can't believe you say this after your post about the judges! Which is it, Mark - do personal opinions influence the outcome or don't they? Harper's vote is just one vote among hundreds. A judge's vote is one vote among nine. A judge does not campaign on a platform that includes issues which concern morality. Their job is to apply the law. Politicians are elected, in large part, to their stance on social and moral issues. A party's stance on abortion is very much a moral issue, for example. I don't think I'm being inconsistent in suggesting that jugdes may remain objective where a political leader may allow their personal morality, and/or the moral preferences of their party and constituents, to guide their actions while in power. His point, and the point of many others (including myself) was that the outcome itself wasn't the important thing. The important thing was that it should have been left to a free vote or at the VERY least left to Parliament - not plowed through by unaccountable judges. yeah, free votes for everything Let's just have a fucking referendum for every issue that comes up that isn't explicitly recited in clear wording in the law. We can't ignore the democratic process...but we can't subject EVERY issue to free votes or Parliament. You're saying the judges are unaccountabe...I'm saying Parliament changes every four years, at least, and is the result of what MOST people want. There has to be some middle ground. I suggest having leaving power in the hands of judges and implementing checks...I don't want Parliament to have absolute power. Remember, we want the gov't to stay out of our day-to-day lives, right? But you want judges to defer to Parliament. So which one is it? Do you want a highly involved gov't or more of a laissez-faire scenario that allows the courts to exercise some discretion? We don't advocate taking any power whatsoever away from judges. We only advocate reminding them how much power they actually have by virtue of parliamentary judicial review. If the government attempts to enact a law that is actually not in accordance with a certain section of the constitution, then by all means, it should be struck down by the judges. That is their role - to interpret the constitution, not rewrite it. However, if judges start blowing smoke out of their asses (as they have been) then society at large needs some sort of recourse. I agree...implement some reviews, checks, whatever...just don't put too much power into the hands of the gov't. Already people are complaining about how meddlesome the gov't has become...well, remove power from the courts and see what happens!

meh...I'm not playing with the tags...you can see my replies in the different font

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut [COLOR=#99CCEE]...How many times do liberals need to be reminded that regardless of his personal beliefs, Harper simply doesn't have the authority to magically revoke all the gay marriages and other gay rights...COLOR]

I think most Liberals are aware of that...

Yet Harper says that he will still put it to a free vote and he personally will vote for a return to the traditional defintion of marriage, despite it being deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Why?

It seems to me that he's misleading the public by implying that he can, and will, do something where he apparently can not.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r You trying to put a square peg in a round hole though. The United States are just that, United STATES. They all have their own jurisdictions thus differing laws between the States. Sure there are common federal laws between them but be careful when lumping all laws in the same basket and comparing them to us.

I was refering to electoral jurisdictions rather then legislative jurisdictions.... I suppose I should have used the term districts, however, it elluded me yesterday. Truth is in the US you have differences in the application of criminal, civil, and family law based on the district. For instance, Queens county in NYC is one of the most generous with regard to tort awards in the US whereas Nassau County (which neighbours Queens County) is one of the most conservative. How the law can differ depending on which side of the street an incident occurs is completely beyond me. I would hate to see that same thing happen here.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut The notion of "interpretation" can only go so far. If a judge cannot point out which section of the constitution a law infringes on and succinctly explain why, then it is not a valid interpretation. I can "interpret" you saying "hello" as "I have sex with goats" and, given sufficient time, could probably come up with a way to rationalize that interpretation. What it all comes down to is that a certain amount of literalness is required in the interpretations, and while we can't force judges to be more literal, we can subject them to review so that there is recourse if they go off the deep end. With no recourse, there is no accountability, and if judges are given free reign as well as the final say say over constitutional questions, we might as well throw away the constitution completely because it is meaningless. There must be an understanding that judges are *below* the constitution in society's hierarchy, not above it or even equal to it. If they are given the power to make decisions that are not in accordance with (or perhaps even in contravention of) the constitution, they must ultimately be accountable either to the people or to their elected representatives. You may see S. 33 as a way of circumventing the constitution, but I see it as the last line of defense against unelected, unaccountable judges who try to circumvent the constitution. Parliament cannot start making loony laws without fear of being subjected to a non-confidence vote and subsequently being voted out of power by the people; judges have no such deterrent for loony judgments.

Aaron, for every decision the Supreme Court makes there is a precis written that explains the decision. They are always based on law. These people don't just make up their minds based on their personal beliefs. Honestly, you're reaching here. If you believe that a parliament made up of people from every walk of life better understand the constitution then do nine of the most experienced judges in the country who have spent their entire adult lives studying and practicing law then I would suggest to you that your beliefs defy all logic and reason.

There is a method to hold judges accountable presently. Granted, I think that method is woefully inadequate, however, I do not believe that electing judges is the answer. Perhaps a better answer would be subjecting judges to peer review periodically (just throwing this out there I have not really looked into the viability of such a mechanism).

Your contention that we have made judges the lone arbiter of the constitution and therefore s.33 is our only protection from poor judgements illustrates a complete lack of understanding with regard to the constitution and the legislative process. As I mentioned earlier, if the court strikes down a law it is incubnent on parliament of (or the legislative assembly if it is a provincial matter) to draft new legislation that will work within the constitution. If this is not possible and the issue is that important to Canadians then a constitutional ammendment would be the answer. Of course ammending the constitution is not an easy task but if the issue is really what the people want then it is possible. Invokation of the notwithstanding clause is simply the govenment's way of saying "we are above the law" and is a breaking of the social contract between the citizenry and the state.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf Incredibly, Paul Martin advocated using the notwithstanding clause not too long ago. http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/12/18/martin031218 As it happens, the Supreme Court ruled that churches shouldn't be compelled to perform those services. However, had the decision gone the other way, what would Martin have done? The hypocrisy of Martin and the Lieberal Party is simply unbelievable. By the way, I think that would have been a legitimate use of S.33.

I too would have objected to a decision that would force churches to perform homosexual marriages. Thankfully, the court ruled that the FREEDOM of religion trumps the RIGHT to marry. This is a good decision as freedoms are paramount. That said, had the court ruled churches must preform homosexual marriages I would have objected to the use of s.33 to side step that decision, preferring that a constitutional ammendment be sought.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Matt I'm an NDP supporter, but I find it really annoying how Layton plays these debates. He sounds like a broken record with "a better choice", "work for families", etc.

Jack Layton is annoying, period. The NDP haven't had a good leader since Ed Broadbent and they will not be forming a national government anytime soon.

I feel very distanced from this whole election and though I'm a bit ashamed to admit it, I just may not even bother voting. I find all three "real" parties (the Bloc Quebecois is just a waste of time) to be revolting in different ways.

___________________
"No offense, but you're stupid"

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/liberalattack.wmv

Wow. This took away whatever was left of me wanting to vote Liberal.

That slimeball of a liberal lackey got owned by Mike Duffy though.

___________________
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 Dj Smitty20 I just may not even bother voting.

adults vote.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]