“What Justice Nadon’s appointment says about the Supreme Court’s future”
24 Replies to “Knickers, Knotted”
Warning – don’t make the same mistake I did:
Reading the G&M’s reaction to PM Harper’s action was as entertaining as most of these “knotted knickers” stories, but then I foolishly decided to scan the G&M’s purified, moderated (nee censored) comments. I almost lost my breakfast. Apparently it is possible to OD on mindless vitriol.
I suppose the unspoken question from the nattering class insiders is why an honest man detached from Quebec politics was chosen over an pernicious netwoking elite, LPC/Mob-connected shyster from Montreal as is the norm.
The article is a poor screed for the notion that Justice Nadon is not an ‘annointed chosen among the progressives’.
By referencing some others on the so called short list, the article lamely tries to impune Justice Nadon’s legal thought and vigour; by alleging that it is less than scholarly.
There is no basis for the allegation nor the conclusion; but merely parrots the opinion as proof of the conclusion, in some circles this would be known as a tautology.
The article is less than bird cage lining material. No self respecting parrot would deign to evacuate their bowels on such a poor excuse for writing.
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Judging from the leftist screed it’s gotta be a great appointment.
Mr. Harper had no shortage of judges from the Quebec Court of Appeal to choose from. They included at least two judges with star power, Marie-France Bich and Nicholas Kasirer, both of them regarded as scholarly centrists.
Even without moving the hyphen over one notch that’s gotta be a contender for 2013’s Most Caricaturistic Name. And since the G&M would regard the Khmer Rouge “as scholarly centrists”, thanks due to the PM for a good appointment.
And just a heads up.. ur parser could be eating tags. I previewed above comment and it was fine, without a line break after bolded bit.
Appalling article. A hatchet job on a fine jurist who has been deciding cases for twenty years. Why does ruling against Khadar make him unqualified?
When Chrétien appointed the spouse of one of his fund raisers to the Supreme Court (Deschamps), over many other better qualified people, The Globe was silent. Disgusting.
If the Grope and Flail is wringing their hands over this, it has to be a good choice on Mr. Harper’s part.
Isn’t it curious the given reasons why this individual is ‘unfit’ to serve? Where in the charter were new definitions of marriage or treaty rights? In other words Nadon might not be as willing as the current Supremes to read rights into law that are made up from whole cloth.
Yep, it’s yet another op-ed, presented as a “National News Story”, in which an Upper Canada wise man is able to give every appearance of being factual and calmly analytical/logical in his “reporting” by 1) presumptuously (and probably in an un-self-aware way at this point) using, and citing those who use, a Royal “We” tone in speaking on behalf of Canada as a nation, and 2) citing anti-Conservative opinions of a narrow, juried selection of wise ( by sole virtue of being like-minded) “analysts”, whether specifically named (“Frederick Vaughn (U of Guelph, Ont.), co-author of the seminal book…” “McGill University (Montreal) law professor Robert Leckey”, “James Cameron, an Osgoode Hall (Toronto) law professor”, “Bruce Ryder, a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School”, “Carissima Mathen, a law professor at the University of Ottawa”) or generalized (“court watchers”, “law professors” “some observers”, “legal circles”, “some fear..”
“Fine merely parrots the opinion as proof of the conclusion…”
Exactly, he’s reporting on his own reporting, in effect, and he elides/pretends to ignore this by parading the views of his carefully-chosen like-minded sources as reflections of some generalized, widely-held, sensible and thoughtful “Canadian” view.
There are actually (at least) three “solitudes”, with some overlap: 1) The committed Québécois viewpoint, 2) The dusty but nationally-dispensed and therefore far too-influential “Laurentian elite” viewpoint as expressed by Fine, the embedded “old school” of Liberals, Red Tories, federal bureaucratic insiders, carefully-selected “experts”, centrist-minded OPG/PPG reporters and their news organizations (including CBC and CTV), etc., and 3) The rest of the country, including the west.
So did the prime minister make a mistake in choosing Justice Nadon?…Court watchers point to a crucial clue – Justice Nadon’s stance on the case of teenage terrorist Omar Khadr.”
The term “court watchers” implies a cloistered singularity — and in fact it may be something like that, given the exclusionary effect of the bilingual requirement — but if the actual majority (or close to it) Canadian view on Khadr was presented as a “national *news* report” (as opposed to an opinion-piece or op-ed), written in a similar “royal ‘We'” tone on behalf of Canada, it would be deemed self-evidently anti-Canadian by this small (and, again, overly-influential) group of “Upper Canada” would-be ruling elites.
Btw, last month Sean Fine wrote an identically-toned, one-size-fits-all “news report” titled “Nadon’s Supreme Court appointment ignores spirit of law, professors argue“.
Let the professors argue. But when you cite the opinions of a bunch of like-minded Laurentian Elite law professors or “experts” who happen to agree that their tribe is the only one deserving of power and influence, and who think that anyone who disagrees with this self-prescribed entitlement is self-evidently mistaken, it’s not actually “news.”
Absolutely. PMSH could come up with a good government and good judiciary just by appointing people that
the Blubb and Wail dislikes.
Captcha is very clear for this item. Let’s see if I make it the first try.
Ha ha. Want some cheeze wit dat whine?
Honestly, when one reads something like this you really do wonder how they manage to get where they are while functioning at the maturity level of a three year old child? Must be all that cradle to grave social support system.
Globe and Mail test for conservatives – if they hate it, it must be the right thing to do.
I think that’s right.
What amuses me, reading around (sort of creepily sounds like sleeping around, I know), is the latest media tactical maneuver, which implicitly admits that Mr. Harper didn’t, you know, steal the last election and also that the Senate ruckus ain’t gonna cut it: let’s put a cordon sanitaire around Mr. Harper on “the economy, public finances, etc.”
Harper’s year-end interview with Post Media News was pretty devastating, IMO: “I’m running again, and the other guys ain’t got nothin’ on the economy.” Which most everybody in the country, in their heart of hearts, can’t really deny.
So Harper’s going to be left alone, for the moment, on Canada’s economic prospects — but he’s absolutely wrong on everything else, up to and including judicial appointments, etc., etc., etc. As long as the economy remains strong, Harper will remain formidable, or so the narrative goes.
The other side of the coin, of course, is that the economy could tank — which is what the left/media are banking on, by their behaviour. Think about it: they are deliberately short-selling the Canadian economy (a la George Soros and the British Pound), without ever having to make up the difference, given their, er, risk-free “occupation” (which involves only a form of words): heck, we’ve even got Terry Glavin, Chantal Hebert and Stephen Maher engaged in pot-shot back-biting already over Northern Gateway.
I must have passed the test. The fact it was G&M was enough for me to arrive at the opinion PMSH made the correct decision with his appointment.
But; what does a semi-retired businessman with military experience; elected political experience; appointed committee experience; board of directors experience for non-profit organizations understand about Supreme Court appointments.
After all what does meeting a payroll for 40 years; fighting off bad rulings from Canada’s tariff gendarmes; resisting the inaction and bias of provincial bureaucrats on labour matters; and heaven forbid not kowtowing to the we understand people much better than you in the reality of maintaining employee standards in a globalized market place.
I must be jumping to incorrect conclusions about the column by the G&M due to a lack of experience in Canadian values. Cheers;
You just know that the PM made a right choice when the institution elite cry foul. By the way, just what does “no evident tendencies towards judicial creativity” exactly mean? I thought the Supremes were supposed to clarify the letter of the law not get creative.
Although I am sure you know already “judicial creativity” is code for judicial activism, which allowed including in the charter things which were purposely omitted. The hissy fit by the neo-communists tells me this was a good appointment. Otherwise I would not have known since lawyers and judges are not in my circle of friends.
“Jamie Cameron, an Osgoode Hall law professor, says she has a rule not to comment publicly on the attributes of appointees – but she is breaking her rule this time.”
“‘What the appointment shows is the Prime Minister’s lack of respect for the Supreme Court as an institution,’ she says. ‘I feel very strongly that the orderly progression and evolution of the law requires a strong court – a court that’s capable and willing to demonstrate leadership. I think this appointment unquestionably weakens the court.'”
This type of reaction is predictable, and telling. The leftists didn’t utter a peep when the Liberals stacked the Supreme Court in 2004 so that their gay marriage reference would be approved. But let the Conservatives veer the slightest bit towards what they perceive to be stacking the Court and they’re up in arms. (I should add that I don’t object in the slightest to gay marriage, just to numerous other prominent SCC decisions in recent years)
“Justice Nadon’s willingness to poke holes in what would otherwise have been unanimous rulings could lead the court in new directions.”
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin is known to prefer unanimous decisions, and they surely do provide much more clarity for justice in general, but they don’t always arise. There have been plenty of judgments with just one dissenter, such as Bou Malhab, in which the majority was right, and Baier, in which the dissenting Justice Fish was right, or at least almost entirely so. And there have been others with a minority of more than one. Sometimes a unanimous ruling can give the impression that “the fix was in”.
The article would be the same no matter who Harper appointed, with name changes of course.
“The article would be the same no matter who Harper appointed, with name changes of course.”
Yet another non-story!
Amazing how Liberal appointments are all reasonable and the Conservatives are all unreasonable. Judges liberally rewrite law to match their own sentiments, constantly ignoring law thereby rendering the elected Parliament impotent. The only fair criticism is that a judicial candidate’s sentiments are are because there is no law anymore.
“are are”
are wrong
Johnny…right on. The comments from all the “lawyers” and judicial experts on G&M are amazing. They, as usual, thinks it is an abomination of Harper making the appointment but of course Trudeau or Chretien never made a bad appointment to the SC. The liberal/socialists are truly delusional and the comments on the story prove it. It is amazing, hilarious and frightening all at the same time.
Warning – don’t make the same mistake I did:
Reading the G&M’s reaction to PM Harper’s action was as entertaining as most of these “knotted knickers” stories, but then I foolishly decided to scan the G&M’s purified, moderated (nee censored) comments. I almost lost my breakfast. Apparently it is possible to OD on mindless vitriol.
I suppose the unspoken question from the nattering class insiders is why an honest man detached from Quebec politics was chosen over an pernicious netwoking elite, LPC/Mob-connected shyster from Montreal as is the norm.
The article is a poor screed for the notion that Justice Nadon is not an ‘annointed chosen among the progressives’.
By referencing some others on the so called short list, the article lamely tries to impune Justice Nadon’s legal thought and vigour; by alleging that it is less than scholarly.
There is no basis for the allegation nor the conclusion; but merely parrots the opinion as proof of the conclusion, in some circles this would be known as a tautology.
The article is less than bird cage lining material. No self respecting parrot would deign to evacuate their bowels on such a poor excuse for writing.
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Judging from the leftist screed it’s gotta be a great appointment.
Even without moving the hyphen over one notch that’s gotta be a contender for 2013’s Most Caricaturistic Name. And since the G&M would regard the Khmer Rouge “as scholarly centrists”, thanks due to the PM for a good appointment.
And just a heads up.. ur parser could be eating tags. I previewed above comment and it was fine, without a line break after bolded bit.
Appalling article. A hatchet job on a fine jurist who has been deciding cases for twenty years. Why does ruling against Khadar make him unqualified?
When Chrétien appointed the spouse of one of his fund raisers to the Supreme Court (Deschamps), over many other better qualified people, The Globe was silent. Disgusting.
If the Grope and Flail is wringing their hands over this, it has to be a good choice on Mr. Harper’s part.
Isn’t it curious the given reasons why this individual is ‘unfit’ to serve? Where in the charter were new definitions of marriage or treaty rights? In other words Nadon might not be as willing as the current Supremes to read rights into law that are made up from whole cloth.
Yep, it’s yet another op-ed, presented as a “National News Story”, in which an Upper Canada wise man is able to give every appearance of being factual and calmly analytical/logical in his “reporting” by 1) presumptuously (and probably in an un-self-aware way at this point) using, and citing those who use, a Royal “We” tone in speaking on behalf of Canada as a nation, and 2) citing anti-Conservative opinions of a narrow, juried selection of wise ( by sole virtue of being like-minded) “analysts”, whether specifically named (“Frederick Vaughn (U of Guelph, Ont.), co-author of the seminal book…” “McGill University (Montreal) law professor Robert Leckey”, “James Cameron, an Osgoode Hall (Toronto) law professor”, “Bruce Ryder, a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School”, “Carissima Mathen, a law professor at the University of Ottawa”) or generalized (“court watchers”, “law professors” “some observers”, “legal circles”, “some fear..”
Exactly, he’s reporting on his own reporting, in effect, and he elides/pretends to ignore this by parading the views of his carefully-chosen like-minded sources as reflections of some generalized, widely-held, sensible and thoughtful “Canadian” view.
There are actually (at least) three “solitudes”, with some overlap: 1) The committed Québécois viewpoint, 2) The dusty but nationally-dispensed and therefore far too-influential “Laurentian elite” viewpoint as expressed by Fine, the embedded “old school” of Liberals, Red Tories, federal bureaucratic insiders, carefully-selected “experts”, centrist-minded OPG/PPG reporters and their news organizations (including CBC and CTV), etc., and 3) The rest of the country, including the west.
The term “court watchers” implies a cloistered singularity — and in fact it may be something like that, given the exclusionary effect of the bilingual requirement — but if the actual majority (or close to it) Canadian view on Khadr was presented as a “national *news* report” (as opposed to an opinion-piece or op-ed), written in a similar “royal ‘We'” tone on behalf of Canada, it would be deemed self-evidently anti-Canadian by this small (and, again, overly-influential) group of “Upper Canada” would-be ruling elites.
Btw, last month Sean Fine wrote an identically-toned, one-size-fits-all “news report” titled “Nadon’s Supreme Court appointment ignores spirit of law, professors argue“.
Let the professors argue. But when you cite the opinions of a bunch of like-minded Laurentian Elite law professors or “experts” who happen to agree that their tribe is the only one deserving of power and influence, and who think that anyone who disagrees with this self-prescribed entitlement is self-evidently mistaken, it’s not actually “news.”
Absolutely. PMSH could come up with a good government and good judiciary just by appointing people that
the Blubb and Wail dislikes.
Captcha is very clear for this item. Let’s see if I make it the first try.
Ha ha. Want some cheeze wit dat whine?
Honestly, when one reads something like this you really do wonder how they manage to get where they are while functioning at the maturity level of a three year old child? Must be all that cradle to grave social support system.
Globe and Mail test for conservatives – if they hate it, it must be the right thing to do.
I think that’s right.
What amuses me, reading around (sort of creepily sounds like sleeping around, I know), is the latest media tactical maneuver, which implicitly admits that Mr. Harper didn’t, you know, steal the last election and also that the Senate ruckus ain’t gonna cut it: let’s put a cordon sanitaire around Mr. Harper on “the economy, public finances, etc.”
Harper’s year-end interview with Post Media News was pretty devastating, IMO: “I’m running again, and the other guys ain’t got nothin’ on the economy.” Which most everybody in the country, in their heart of hearts, can’t really deny.
So Harper’s going to be left alone, for the moment, on Canada’s economic prospects — but he’s absolutely wrong on everything else, up to and including judicial appointments, etc., etc., etc. As long as the economy remains strong, Harper will remain formidable, or so the narrative goes.
The other side of the coin, of course, is that the economy could tank — which is what the left/media are banking on, by their behaviour. Think about it: they are deliberately short-selling the Canadian economy (a la George Soros and the British Pound), without ever having to make up the difference, given their, er, risk-free “occupation” (which involves only a form of words): heck, we’ve even got Terry Glavin, Chantal Hebert and Stephen Maher engaged in pot-shot back-biting already over Northern Gateway.
I must have passed the test. The fact it was G&M was enough for me to arrive at the opinion PMSH made the correct decision with his appointment.
But; what does a semi-retired businessman with military experience; elected political experience; appointed committee experience; board of directors experience for non-profit organizations understand about Supreme Court appointments.
After all what does meeting a payroll for 40 years; fighting off bad rulings from Canada’s tariff gendarmes; resisting the inaction and bias of provincial bureaucrats on labour matters; and heaven forbid not kowtowing to the we understand people much better than you in the reality of maintaining employee standards in a globalized market place.
I must be jumping to incorrect conclusions about the column by the G&M due to a lack of experience in Canadian values. Cheers;
You just know that the PM made a right choice when the institution elite cry foul. By the way, just what does “no evident tendencies towards judicial creativity” exactly mean? I thought the Supremes were supposed to clarify the letter of the law not get creative.
Although I am sure you know already “judicial creativity” is code for judicial activism, which allowed including in the charter things which were purposely omitted. The hissy fit by the neo-communists tells me this was a good appointment. Otherwise I would not have known since lawyers and judges are not in my circle of friends.
“Jamie Cameron, an Osgoode Hall law professor, says she has a rule not to comment publicly on the attributes of appointees – but she is breaking her rule this time.”
“‘What the appointment shows is the Prime Minister’s lack of respect for the Supreme Court as an institution,’ she says. ‘I feel very strongly that the orderly progression and evolution of the law requires a strong court – a court that’s capable and willing to demonstrate leadership. I think this appointment unquestionably weakens the court.'”
This type of reaction is predictable, and telling. The leftists didn’t utter a peep when the Liberals stacked the Supreme Court in 2004 so that their gay marriage reference would be approved. But let the Conservatives veer the slightest bit towards what they perceive to be stacking the Court and they’re up in arms. (I should add that I don’t object in the slightest to gay marriage, just to numerous other prominent SCC decisions in recent years)
“Justice Nadon’s willingness to poke holes in what would otherwise have been unanimous rulings could lead the court in new directions.”
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin is known to prefer unanimous decisions, and they surely do provide much more clarity for justice in general, but they don’t always arise. There have been plenty of judgments with just one dissenter, such as Bou Malhab, in which the majority was right, and Baier, in which the dissenting Justice Fish was right, or at least almost entirely so. And there have been others with a minority of more than one. Sometimes a unanimous ruling can give the impression that “the fix was in”.
The article would be the same no matter who Harper appointed, with name changes of course.
“The article would be the same no matter who Harper appointed, with name changes of course.”
Yet another non-story!
Amazing how Liberal appointments are all reasonable and the Conservatives are all unreasonable. Judges liberally rewrite law to match their own sentiments, constantly ignoring law thereby rendering the elected Parliament impotent. The only fair criticism is that a judicial candidate’s sentiments are are because there is no law anymore.
“are are”
are wrong
Johnny…right on. The comments from all the “lawyers” and judicial experts on G&M are amazing. They, as usual, thinks it is an abomination of Harper making the appointment but of course Trudeau or Chretien never made a bad appointment to the SC. The liberal/socialists are truly delusional and the comments on the story prove it. It is amazing, hilarious and frightening all at the same time.