Legal experts believe that Madam Justice Rosalie Abella, the only left-leaning judge on the court, is now doomed to perpetually find herself on the wrong end of 8-1 court decisions.
Legal experts believe that Madam Justice Rosalie Abella, the only left-leaning judge on the court, is now doomed to perpetually find herself on the wrong end of 8-1 court decisions.
What do you call a lawyer, with an IQ of 80?
Your honor.
can we now go and burn some cross’ in Hedy Frey’s district ???
I hope Harper doesn’t wimp out and use parliamentary hearings to vet candidates. I want the youngest and most rabid right wingers in there.
“Harper will add open minded judges.
Posted by: a@c at May 14, 2011 2:06 AM ”
uh, no, what he will do is appoint severely right leaning judges for the usual reasons.
Then there is hope that much of the damage to our society that has been caused by leftards …. can be repaired.
It will take years to reverse th socialist rape of this Nation. Next should be the bureaucracy.
The lgal system can only go so far. Its the nameless faces in ministries that regulate us to death.
JMO
The notion that Rosalie Abella is the only left-leaning judge on the Supreme Court and that the remaining eight are conservative or middle-of-the-road is just the leftists blowing smoke.
There have been numerous decisions from the McLachlin court that the extreme left would be very happy with, for example:
Chatterjee (2009): upheld the travesty of civil forfeiture without a criminal conviction
Kapp (2008): upheld race-based fishing “rights” (aboriginal in this case)
H. S. S. (2007): made collective bargaining a “right” (while discussing some alleged “principles” of reversing previous judgments without mentioning what those supposed principles are or where they can be found for our edification)
tobacco companies vs. B.C. (2005): upheld the evil of retroactive law
Harper (2004): upheld the election gag law (McLachlin, Major and Binnie dissenting)
Bell (2003): upheld pay equity
Authorson (2003): upheld government confiscation of interest on assets of veterans (a case where a little “judicial activism” would have been welcome)
Bell vs. Can-Am (2002): shut down the so-called “gray market” in satellite dishes
Advanced Cutting and Coring (2001): upheld a Quebec law requiring all construction workers in that province to join one of five unions
Cooper vs. Hobart (2001): held that regulators need not be held responsible in any way for their actions resulting from their own laziness, incompetence or malfeasance
Blencoe (2000): essentially held that due process and other legal rights do not apply to cases before human rights commissions (technically this is correct, because s.11 refers to those “charged with an offense”, but the ugliness of the situation is there for all to see; perhaps they could have “read in” the oversight as in Vriend?)
I’m not opposed to judicial activism where it’s appropriate. The biggest problem is that the Charter of Rights is full of errors that desperately need to be fixed (a topic about which I have posted in these spaces before). The s.11 exemption of “human rights” commissions from due process is one of the biggest mistakes – which I believe was deliberate on behalf of Pierre Trudeau.
At least the McLachlin court has a competent chief justice who is always willing to defend freedom of expression. Antonio Lamer was a flaky egotist who was always trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat, and Brian Dickson had a very shallow mind. Note, however, that some of the above decisions were written in whole or in part by judge McLachlin.
The G&M article is a textbook case of media bias; every paragraph in what purports to be a news article is shot through with unexamined assumptions and stereotypes.
I suspect, however, that the fears of the authors are quite overblown. They are based on the tired myth that Mr Harper has been keeping a “hidden agenda” in his breast pocket until he secured a majority. Interestingly, the gloating comments above seem to be based on the same myth. I fear, however, that Mr Harper will disappoint those of us who want judges to stick to interpreting the laws that Parliament has passed and who can draw the Court back from its activist role. Nor have I any hope that Mr Harper will initiate a serious review of the Charter and its perversions of civil rights.
“What do you call a lawyer, with an IQ of 80?
Your honor.
Posted by: eastern paul at May 14, 2011 1:47 PM ”
——————————————–
Hmm, I thought they were called straight A law students..