A writer with the credentials to know of what they speak, raises a red flag;
The idea that the Tories will choose the next SCC judge from the Liberals’ short list in order to save the Court the burden of sitting in panels of seven is breathtaking.
What is the matter with Vic Toews? Is he insane? There isn’t another appointment until ~2012. Do they think that Rosie got appointed for her legal acuity and that any three qualified candidates will do? Why do we vote?
Someone needs to raise serious hell. This is much, much worse than Harriet Miers.
Lawyers now decide to not raise strong (even unanswerable) arguments for this Court because the Court is outright dismissive of any train of reasoning that threatens its general agenda, and it isn’t in any client’s interest to lose the Court’s attention for the better domesticated arguments that might be raised on his or her behalf. Law is becoming legally irrelevant.
We badly need someone who understands that something has gone badly and systematically wrong in, e.g., Harper v. Canada, and who can persuasively articulate the defects in the Court’s approach for years. Otherwise, by 2012 any idea of a constitution that isn’t a judge’s invention will be an historical irrelevancy. Someone who is fully up to the task needs to be appointed now, just to keep possibility of a debate on the subject alive. (As well, some members of the current Court still have some lawyers’ instincts and may be open to persuasion.)
This helps to illustrate why I felt some conservative bloggers (and conservatives in general) badly misfired when reacting to the Emerson/Fortier controversy. Considered criticism would have been one thing – but the level of rhetoric from some quarters on the right was reactionary and politically immature. The comparisons to President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the US Supreme Court were particularly absurd. As I wrote one commentator privately – set aside the fact that cabinet selections are no where near the level of importance as a Supreme Court installment – Republicans would have had the general good sense not to come unglued in the first week of a hard won mandate.
After two years of experience in identifying and countering media-driven controversies, the conservative blogosphere swallowed one hook, line and sinker – and burned up a lot of hard earned political capital in the process.
In the meantime, Canadians were occupied with real life, and Harper’s approval rating rose.
Supreme Court activism is a deeply problematic development in Canada, and not one that is likely to be taken up by the opposition or liberal/left dominated media – after all, the court’s habit of rewriting the constitution to serve their pet causes fits their agenda nicely.
It is precisely the kind of issue that conservatives should have been saving their fire for. The question is, given the last couple of weeks – if voices on the right did try to apply co-ordinated pressure on Harper to rethink it, who’s paying attention now?
Amen, sister. Chalk one up to the sanctimonious Coyne (banned me from his site, I’m not bitter) and the annoyingly cryptic Wells. And Bourque, who really jumped the shark last night calling Emerson a Sh*thead all in caps on his site.
Nobody’s going to have the energy to properly challenge this SC nomination…
What precisely will one conservative among a panel of 9 judges do to further the conservative agenda?
Harper cannot barrel through the court. He must consider it as a sytemic obstacle and find ways around it. I suspect he understands this. It’s an unfortunate but inescapable byproduct of years of Liberal hegemony. Why should he eat up political capital by appointing a conservative judge who can gain him nothing?
I find it hilarious that you Right wingers are having so much trouble with Harper’s first week or two on the job. With regard to his numbers rising in the polls – that is temporary at best. The Canadian people will be sick and fed up of him in short order. Enjoy it while you ‘got’ it
Kate:
I think part of the problem is that the Harper team is suffering from a dose of very bad communication skills.
If we are prepared to give the team the benefit of the doubt on these rather odd decisions so far, then they need to do a better job of talking to their base and explaining their actions.
For my part, I’ve decided to close my eyes and ears until parliament resumes sitting, with the hope that Harper knows what he is doing. If I pay too much attention to what is going on I get frustrated because my instincts raise many red flags.
I was perhaps naive in assuming that something impressive would rise out of the defeat of the Liberals, but it’s not clear to me what we have yet. The Emerson affair was horribly handled. Harper’s statement on the cartoons was weak-kneed. The approach the SCC appointment is troublesome as you have pointed out. And so on.
Perhaps Garth Turner is taking the wrong approach (that’s up for debate), but his actions could be viewed as a symptom of the problem.
I think it was right to question the arguable about-face from the CPC, whether it resonated with the electorate or not.
At the same time I think your assessment that conservatives are in a refractory period has merit, Kate.
As a collective, w-a-a-a-y too many shot their wad prematurely, at the mere prospect of actually screwing someone.
In the Q&A following his statement today, Harper said that his final selection will be based on the judge which he feels will *apply* the law and *not make* the law.
Are we to trust that he already knows there to be one such nominee, available on that list, which will do just that?
One can only hope that is the case and watch the committee do its best to pinpoint where we need to have concerns.
We are a dis-trusting lot afterall, and for good reason.
The only thing worse would be a Liberal government coming back before we see what the books really look like.
And we know how to be good serfs, sadly.
The CPC lost their ethical cherry on Emerson, an opportunist who slid into office on an anti-Conservative strategic vote in an otherwise brain-dead NDP riding. Small short-term benefit for long term loss. Enough said.
On the SCC matter, why the hell is Harper pandering to the agenda of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin. Why not introduce an evergreen clause on SCC judges. Not only should new appointees face Legislative scrutiny but so should they all, say every five years. Then, not only must they defend their views on the constitution but forced to answer for past rulings, which in terms of advocacy have a target-rich history. This would present an opportunity to cull-out the offending Judges.
Harper’s Litmus test is looking similar to that of Peter Lougheed, going in blue and turning pink!
As long as section 33 is intact, the court remains subserviant to both parliament and the provincial legislatures.
Judicial “activism” in social engineering is a troubling trend…but as far as the SCC “rewriting the constitution” is converned, this is nothing that the vigilant and correct use of the NWS clause would not cure.
The real problem Kate, is left wing politicians who want to micro manage society, are lying to the public…telling them the NWS clause and its use is somehow unholy, unCanaduian…even anti-constitutional, when in fact section 33 is our only safety valve between representative constitutional democracy and Juroctatic/ oligarchial dictatorship. The notwithstanding safety valve protects both Minorities from the tyranny of the majority but also the will of the majority from dictators.
People have to be made to see the NWS clause for it’s worth, elected reps have to start actively using it when they are confronted with publicly fractious Jurocratic diktat or damaging Federal statist diktat.
The NWS was envoked 103 times the first 3 years after the Charter by 7 provincial governments and was never chastised as being “unCanadian” or “a destruction of minority rights”…primarily because it was provincial governments representing minority groups in the separate provinces ( Natives and Francophiones) using it to protect minority rights against Federal conformity dictates…why ,now, have social enginners taken to blackening the purpose of the NWS clause?
Obviously because social engineer are having the courts do their legislating for them on contentious issues which they cannot get a solid referendum or parliamentary mandate to pass as law themselves….never was there a better use for having the will of the majority and their elected reps ignore social diktat from the activist bench. Of course Provinces are given the same right to opt out.
Charter section 33; it’s not just for protecting minorities.
One real, intelligent conservative with a coherent legal philosophy on the Supreme Court would be the nucleus around which dissenting opinions would be formed. Eventually, that would lead to the nucleus for majority decisions.
What good did William Rehnquist do on the US Supreme Court for 30+ years? His early days on the liberal court were very lonely. Apparently, there were a number of 8-1 decisions, where his was the lone voice of dissent.
Face it, Canada will have a liberal court for at least another 15 years, more likely 30. The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. This is a battle for what the court will look like 15 years from now, not now.
I fail to see what all the fuss is about.
Do we know who the nominees are? Do we know anything about their records? Is it possible that there are some very good candidates in the mix?
Unless i heard the Prime Minister wrong, the names of the candidates will be made public next week.
What are we worried about?
I like the idea that this issue is moving forward and we will not be bogged down with a protracted selection process.
Dont forget, the selection committee will reflect the make up of parliament, a new and innovative development
Theres a big difference between process and progress.
Agree. A couple of points:
I�ve been pleasantly surprised lately to meet up with downtown Toronto Liberals who are having a Damascus experience about Harper who they used to fear but they now like. Among the reasons for this change they say are his two �brilliant� appointments of Emerson/Fortier �proving that he can think outside the box and is not beholding to rednecks�. Therefore these Liberals now say they are prepared to vote for Harper next time. I�ve also concluded that when these people say that they like his moving to the centre what they�re really saying is that he�s setting it up to move incrementally. Most Canadians fear rapid change and that�s what they thought Reform would give them. I wish we could move faster but we have to face reality, we can hardly move at all with a minority but I now think Harper can achieve a majority next time out, then hopefully we can shape the country conservatively.
As far as the Supreme Court goes, given recent years of wishy-washy legislators defaulting to activists judges (I�m dreading the day we read about some insane position Rosalie Abella has taken) it is quite possible that the most important thing a President or PM can do during their terms is to influence this process to their liking. Yes, I agree, Harper should be as opportunistic as possible about this.
“Actions speak louder than words” a tired old clich� but valid
nonetheless today more than ever in Canada.
Good on Vic Toews and Stephen Harper for opening up the nominating process from the former secretive (hidden from public scrutiny) method of appointing Supremes, our current “Court Party.”
If nothing else it would make riveting public television to hear from some prospective Justices.
It’s a good start and a welcome change to Canadian governance.
It will be very difficult to ever go back to the flawed system once this method is set a precedent.
I have sat here for some time trying to decide how to go about this without blithering. For those of you who blindly follow Harper I say thats what was/is wrong with liberal followers. Correcting the way Canada is governed will not happen by following this route.
For those of you who applaud the CPC/Harper approval rating give some thought as to where it is comming from and why. I speak only for myself but I voted conservative, not PC/LIB/NDP. I voted for change to honest government. All I’m seeing is the same old crap.
CAW: “All I’m seeing is the same old crap”
Hope ive got this straight.
My sense is that you and those who feel as you do would be happier if the Prime Minister followed whatever process you think he should even if there is nothing getting done.
same old crap?
A DIFFERENT way of going about the selection of Judges
Same old crap?
CONTINUED PROMISES to keep the promises made during the election campaign
Same old crap?
The CONTROVERSIAL appointments to cabinet to KEEP HIS PROMISE to govern for all of Canada, and by the way, put additional awesome talent to work for Canadians.
Nope, ITS NOT THE SAME OLD CRAP.
It takes guts to do all of this. This kind of courage has not been evident in Canadian politics for a long time.
I’m glad Coyne is off skiing somewhere! While I’m not thrilled that Harper is willing to live with the existing list for expediency, I take heart from the fact that the list is of prairie judges; surely to God they’ll have a BIT of common sense? I agree with those who see this as taking the long view – by choosing someone from the Liberal-gov’t-built list, he has pretty much guaranteed that (a) his selection will be approved and (b) the new process will be seen as a good one.
If similar committees are struck for other major appointments, we will be well on the way to real reform in the appointment process, something this country desperately needs.
c’mon people… reading too much into this… it comes down to timing. stephen harper’s government is not going to be in power long enough to re-jig a long list and whittle it down to izzy asper’s ghost and some other neocon nutbags. they have a limited timetable to get things done, and ‘gasp’ are going to just go with whatever the liberals have already decided to do with regard to scc picks, and just about everything else.
Why is everyone assuming so quickly Harper and Toews are spineless idiots? I’m guessing this is more likely a clever gambit, than a politically-expedient capitulation.
There’s a good chance the Libs put a couple of right-of-center judges on the list for the appearance of impartiality. Harper will pick one of those, and another Liberal ruse will blow up in their red faces. Further, by sticking with the Lib list, the opposition parties will have no right to complain. Finally, he is establishing a precedent of legislative review, a genie that can’t be shoved back in the bottle.
GET YOUR FINGERS OFF THE PANIC BUTTON, PEOPLE!!!!!
And re: Harriet Myers. There’s ample evidence to infer that Bush never intended for her to make it to committee, let alone to the bench. She was a smokescreen to confuse the Dems, and to rally the base behind Alito.
Doris Day says “register people, not guns.”
“(and conservatives in general) badly misfired when reacting to the Emerson controversy)”
Nothing is ever going to change my opinion of the Emerson defection. It’s EXACTLY the same as B.S. The more I hear from appologetic Conservatives as to why I “overreacted”, the more I am convinced of my Righteousness.
Conservatives won’t have any political opinions sold them “hook line and sinker” by any media campaign… As anyone that is Conservative AND Canadian has learned long ago how media with a different agenda operate.
Conservatives in Canada are also familiar with how left-wing governments operate, which is what makes the Emerson defection particularily hard to stomach…
Dear Righteous Knight, and all other sanctimonious bores: some of us spend part of our time online, but live squarely in the real world. Oh won’t you join us? Get some perspective and get over Emerson – embassies are burning around the world, and Iran has threatened us all with nukes, for God’s sake!
‘There’s battle lines being drawn’
There’s battle lines being drawn
Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong
The social conservatives arrived in Ottawa this week, prepared to do battle over the definition of marriage, as well as the Divorce Act.
Meanwhile, the Family Law Ba…
Kinda funny that I missed most of the Emerson controversy & wound up jumping on the SCC appointment process quickly. Didn’t plan it that way but I seem to bear out Kate’s thesis: There’s Battle Lines Being Drawn
Well said Lee and Joe M. Our Conservative PMSH has brains and he can be trusted. He knows the MSM are the ‘made in Canada’ enemies of himself, his party and our ideas so he does not give them the opertunity to ‘spin’ his words. Stephen Harper is forcing people to think for themselves because he not passing out ammo to the Liberano/Dipper talking heads in the media. The focus of the media is ALWAYS on the negative (note the number of times the MSM makes a statement with the conjuntion ‘but’ rather than using ‘and’ or ‘or’); unless the item being reported has a Liberano or Dipper as the star – remember paule m. cavorting with a cartoon thingie called ‘bob square pants’ – or something like that; now think of the ‘spin’, had that been Stephen Harper with the “Squarepants” cartoon. The media has structured how we think for so long that we have trouble firing up our latent inductive logic – just deductive logic funtioning, running on idle. If, using deductive logic, we allow the MSM to state the premise of all arguments – eg. we follow their (MSM’s) ‘given’ that the Conservatives are NOT better than the Liberanos, then we will never have a postive conclusion because we are arguing from a false premise. Thinking outside the box is inductive logic, it is NOT encouraged in our cities. In Canada. It is ‘branded’ Special Needs. In our schools. In Canada. Students who think using inductive logic are ‘brought down to earth’ with a label (‘special needs – read ‘dummy’) a tudor to get them thinking ‘correctly’ (eg NOT questioning the ‘givens’). Stephen Harper is definatly using both inductive and deductive thinking, he is a formidable foe and the MSM are way out of their league. Makes me smile from ear to ear. In fact I laugh out loud a lot -at them!! That is all that outfit of ‘flat thinkers’ have earned. Distain. Choose your Canada.
I’ve come to bury Harper not to praise him. But ironicaly enough I always wind up defending him from his lynch mob supporters. Maybe that’s his real strategy for winning over us lefties.
Don’t tie the noose just yet. It’s way too early to be passing judgement on this one.
Recall that in the “The Bishop’s Gambit”, Prime Minister Hacker has to select a bishop (i.e., recommend to the sovereign). He is to pick from a list prepared by the civil service.
Bernard explains to Hacker that civil service choices are a conjurer’s trick, they tell you to pick a card, but you always pick the one they want. They do this by providing options that they don’t think are reasonable, so you won’t pick them over their choice. As Bernard said, when it comes to bishoprics, you usually get a choice between a knave and a queen.
In “The Bishop’s Gambit”, Sir Humphrey does indeed prevail over Hacker in getting the Dean of Baillie College, Oxford, appointed as the Bishop of Bury St. Edmond’s, which he has orchestrated with the Master of the College in order to allow Sir Humphrey to become the Master when he retires. They had to get rid of the Dean because of his dislike for Humphrey.
The most famous line is when the church representative points out that one had the candidates had been waiting for his bishopric for quite some time, and Humphrey said, “Long time, no See.”
Anyway, the point is that, because the civil service has to put up plausible alternatives that they don’t think you will pick, there’s always the danger to them that you might pick one of them because they actually fit into you policy better than the civil service appreciated. This is particularly the case when the government changes under the feet of the civil service.
So it could be that since Mr. Toews sat on the selection committees before the election, he and Mr. Harper are happy with one of the alternatives that the civil service didn’t expect anyone to pick.
Jose: Good line “lynch mop supporters” and a very plausible theory.
Vitruvius: Very good. The best possible course of poli-sci studies, Yes Minister, Yes PM. And a very plausible theory!
Absolutely bang-on Kate.
Anyone ever consider that this is an opportunity for Harper to lay bare the bias of the SCC?
The “pundits” and the MSM have already started chanting the talking points..(talk about telegraphing your punches)
and you can tell they have their collective undergarments at a full 360 over this process.
Stephen Harper
Letting SC nominees be vetted
By an all party committee
To “test” their knowledge of the charter
In Canada
Oh the horror.
Perhaps now would be a good time to forward some of the questions you might like to ask a potential SC nominee to the minister of Justice?
me no dhimmi “a very plausible theory”
That was a joke on my part. Harper can’t afford to blow off his base. Nor can he count on non-partisan lefties to come to his rescue.
It appears you missed the whole point of the Emerson problem. Conservative blogs were trying to send a message to Harper to remain to conservative values. That way future problem would not occur.
However, as you see if Harper was so quick to act like a Liberal with Emerson, why would you be surprised that he may not follow through on bigger issues like Supreme Court Judges?
Harper was under no pressure to act like a Liberal and appoint Emerson – this he did on his own the day after the election.
The blogs didn’t misfire on Emerson – Harper just failed to hear.
Another nail in the coffin that Harper continues to build for the Conservatives:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060220.wxhouse0220/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home
Does it even matter if the Liberals get Stronach or a snail as their next leader? With continuing optics like this, they will come back to bite the Conservatives on the ass next election and the evil Lieberals will be back in.
Lee. If you stopped yelling so loud you might hear what I’m saying. Harper APPEARS to be acting the same as the Liberals and the PCs. His actions so far shout that out. That was not his campain. If he hopes that by turning into a Liberal/PC he has a better chance of getting re-elected he should remember that he’s flushing a lot of conservative votes. I am not a Liberal or a NDP’er I do not vote blindly. Harpers main election theme was honesty. Thats what I voted for and I demand he keeps his word.
Wiil someone please tell me what the problem is with what the Prime Minister is doing?
What exactly are the “values” that are being ignored?
Isnt anyone happy that he has instituted at least in part a vetting committee JUST AS HE SAID HE WOULD DO?
None of you even know who these candidates are.
The Prime Minister knows.
Mr. Toews knows.
Lets save the carping till we at least see who gets the nod.
Kate… In answer to your question about how would be listening, you are assuming one thing: it was the people who criticized Harper over the Emerson / Fortier deal that screwed up the ability for conservatives to apply pressure over this Supreme Court issue. I think you are wrong.
Had conservatives stuck together in expressing their unhappiness with the CPC abandoning their moral high-ground to invite a floor-crossing Liberal into their midst, I think Harper would have had good reason to think twice over this as well. Considering the Harriet Miers issue in the States, I imagine that had conservatives stuck together from the beginning over Emerson they would have a lot more leverage over Harper now.
Your analysis is rather far-fetched. Had there been no outrage over the Emerson bit, but the amount of outrage we did see over the Emerson bit were applied to this Supreme Court issue, I would bet dollars to cents that Harper would be listening to us now as much as he has over Emerson. Had conservatives stuck together from the beginning in opposing Emerson, Harper might have thought twice about this Supreme Court bit.
So, who is to blame now?
Kate
I agree with you that Supreme Court activism is a problem. It is important , however, to realize that its only a problem when there is a lack of legislative action. My hope is that a Conservative Government will provide that action, and thus nullify the problem.
Lee asked just exactly what PM Harper has done that is wrong.
1st – At the Conservative convention last year, the membership voted that all appointments to the Supreme Court most be approved by a free vote in Parliament. Harper now has rejected that – no vote at all in parliament on this issue. Who claims what the Conservative membership think.
Just like the Emerson issue – we are being told to understand that PM Harper knows what he is doing – just wait and see. Same old Liberal argument every time something happened.
2nd � It is my understanding that this appointments will appear to be questioned for 3 hrs and the committee will have no authority to turn down the appointment. Another words � it is just show because Harper and any future PM will still just appoint the person they want.
This is the great reform we have been fighting for.
2nd – Conservatives for years have argued that the system used to appoint Judges is bias to the Liberal. Harper himself supported this idea during the election. Now we find out that Harper will choose one person from the Liberal list – were we not told the list itself had serious problem. In fact, our new Conservative Justice minister was openningly against the list before the election while speaking in the House of Commons.
Lee. What Harpers problem is that in regards to Emmerson and Fortier is that he acted just like a liberal. Now every thing he does will be suspect. Thats the problem.
Lee makes a good point about SCC activism filling the void of timid Liberals. The CPC will be an activist government that doesn�t need to hide behind the rulings of activist judges.
But the other commentators puzzle me. We can�t act as if we have a majority. To eventually get a majority Harper needs as much competence as possible and representation in mega cities, ergo Emerson/Fortier (also to hopefully deal with softwood quickly). Harper has a chicken/egg problem he can�t get the mega cities onside until he can relate to them. IMHO, the Emerson/Fortier deal doesn�t impact the long-term goal of an elected Senate.
We aren�t a 2 party country like the USA; there are only maybe 30% conservatives plus another 10% swing voters at best that we can rely on. Canada has never been very conservative. I don�t even think Klien is conservative, nor even Bush. Conservatism is very difficult and can only be done incrementally. That means Harper has to compromise in order to govern.
Now that the Conservatives appear to be tossing another election ‘promise’ into the trashbin, it is time for the people of Vancouver-Kingsway to stop complaining. They elected a Liberal and now they have a Liberal government in power. They shouldn’t be too concerned about the party label anymore, as Harper is proving that the parties are all the same.
CAW, you sound like a crow … caw! Harper is acting just like a Liberal… caw! Picking someone outside party lines for a cabinet post was showing us on day one that he is not like the Liberals, and he continues to think outside the box.
Did you see the outright fear on the house leader of the NDP and the other woman from the Liberals on Duffy today at the thought that this would all take place on television? That’s all they could repeat… television? caw! Television?!
The Canadian public is going to see what went into choosing our new master. They are going to see that our new master is just a human with faults and flaws applying for a job, just like all of us poor smucks have to. They are going to see that our social engineering masters have good backgrounds and are smart, but they are not the gods we hold them up to be. It is a symbolic event with the choice still in the hands of Mr. Harper.
He is going to get who he wants in the SCC and he is going to make some points while he is doing it. And in 15 yrs or less when we appoint the next SCC justice, the rules will have changed even more.
Rome wasn’t built in a day but some of you sure want to play Nero and burn it down every time Mr. Harper brings us closer to what Canada needs, with smart small irreversible steps. It’s called evolution, not revolution.
caw!
As a conservative, I can’t say I’ve ever disagreed more.
Look, I understand being a team player, but I don’t know how the likes of Kate and Janke can just shrug off Emerson/Fortier. I can understand criticism for giving the story legs (see: Garth Turner) but not any for the gut reaction that most Tories had, which was nausea.
As for judicial activism, everyone take a chill pill. The SSM Reference, Auton, Gosselin, Chaoulli: these are not exactly examples of rampant liberal activism on the Supreme Court. Don’t overstate the case.
As for the wise heads who have been downplaying the Emerson-Fortier thing in the interests of saving political capital, I don’t suppose it might occur to them that the very mistake which likely cost us a majority was Harper musing about just how liberal the courts and civil service were. Remember that it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, because now the public is watching to see if we install one of our own. The only way to inoculate against it is to pick from the pre-existing list. And it’s not as if it’s the deciding vote on a divided court: it’s the only appointment that will likely be coming up for at least five years, so why give the ‘hidden agenda’ scarecrow any more credibility when we can do away with it once and for all.
The (Really, Really) Long Game
Comes news that Harper has now made his ante into the governance game (assuming Cabinet appointments don’t count):
: Committee to judge next Supreme Court appointee
So what do we learn?
Harper was signed on to the three finalists for appointmen…
Much easier to agressively question someone selected by the Liberals than someone selected by Conservatives.
That agressive questioning will send a far stronger message to the public, and to the SCC, than one lone judge on the right could hope to send.
Hopefully Robert Richards’ nomination won’t get far. He was, of course, affiliated with the law firm, Macpherson Leslie and Tyerman LLP (MLT), which is known to have very significant connections to the Saskatchewan NDP. MLT in fact acts for the government in many matters relating to Crown Corporations and the government itself, picking up a disproportionate amount of the overall government’s legal work.
Besides, he has barely even spent a year and a half on the Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court nominations should require more than just basic experience being a judge at the appellate court level.
You butmunching so-called conservative bunch need to give your heads a shake; Emerson IS a conservative and promoting him to cabinet was exactly the right thing to do under the circumstances of this minority parliament. I don’t give a crap about optics, I want an effective government. You bitchers and complainers of our PM’s appointments are not true conservatives; you remind me of KKK clan members! The current laws state what Harper can do and I fully expect him to use all the resources at his disposal because you very well know the Liberals would do the same. WAKE THE FUCK UP DUMBASSES!
Never heard of “agreeing to disagree” Afflicition?
Take a pill.
Hello people concerned about the SC list:
(From Toronto Star, Feb. 19) The names were handed to an advisory panel made up of MPs from all parties � including Toews, who was then in opposition � along with retired judges, lawyers, academics and lay people. The panel whittled the initial six down to a short list of three just before the federal election was called in November.
All the names remain confidential, but legal scholars have speculated freely on who might make the best Supreme Court judge.
Among those often mentioned are Justices Georgina Jackson and Robert Richards of Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, Marc Monin of Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, and Barbara Hamilton and Richard Scott of Manitoba Court of Appeal.
By tradition the judge who replaces Major will come from one of the Prairie provinces.
Aboriginal groups mounted a strong lobbying campaign last fall, arguing that it was time for Ottawa to appoint the first native to the high court. But they have largely given up since then, saying sources in the legal community have told them there were no aboriginals on either the long list or short list developed under Cotler.
*********************************************
My choice would be Marshall Rothstein (Manitoba), now a Federal Court of Appeal justice. But, they didn’t ask me!
Red Tory Senator Segal is a Red Tory. +
Senator Says Tories Must Make Rural Poverty a Priority
Josh Pringle
Monday, February 20, 2006 9:02 PM
Conservative Senator Hugh Segal says too many Canadians live without adequate shelter, food or access to medical and social services.
Segal says the Conservatives will put rural poverty back on the political agenda.
Segal suggests Canadians receive a basic income to ensure they can live with a measure of self-respect and dignity.
Segal also said governments should decentralize services to rural areas and provide much-needed job opportunities. + cfra.com
>>>>From blue conservatives to red tories
Why are rural landowners under attack?
Why are rural landowners under attack? Why do we need property rights entrenched in our Constitution? Here is the government’s plan and strategy to attack rural landowners and their economy. TAKING our land-For their use. more
http://www.ruralrevolution.com/website/
I see this situation as a case of feeding frenzy that has not abated since the prey succumbed!
I was wondering to myself what all the conservative bloggers and pundits would be doing after the election and the answer is….eating each other.
Go drink a big pepto bismol and have a long nap.
The Liberals for now are dead and whats left of them are turned to eating each other for now.