Whichever plot you favour to explain the now-scuttled appointment of Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada — there’s a convoluted connection to the former boy terrorist/boy victim Omar Khadr which has been offered to explain both appointment and scuttling, but the really fabulous one is that the high court has stepped in yet again to check that well-known force of darkness, Prime Minister Stephen Harper — it’s crystal clear that the Supreme Court of Canada is unhappy with this government which insists upon doing the business of governing.
h/t Kevin B
It’s time to change the constitution and to stop giving Quebec preferential treatment. If only they’d separate then we could get on quite nicely without ’em.
Go! Please! Go!
Thinking that Quebec leaving would be the end of the problem is dreaming IMHO. The issue in Canadian politics has always been Ontario’s domination not Quebec. I have no problem if Quebec leaves but the issue remains.
Progressives embedded in the political structure of Canada will continue their efforts to remove Harper no matter what. One should perhaps wonder why a Supreme Court dominated by Harper appointees would make such a decision. Ultimately I suspect, as usual, it is more about where you are from rather than a philosophical process.
Harper was asleep at the switch. Appointing activist judges to the Supreme Court was bound to come back and bite him in the ass. If he asked me, I could have found him a half dozen lawyers that believe the law, as written, is how it should be interpreted and that Parliament should be supreme, except in very unusual cases. Can the guy anticipate nothing?
This is what happens when a country is so far to the left that it can’t recognize anything in the centre and therefore, refers to the centre or centre-left as “right wing”.
The flushing sound you hear……
Why do paranoia and half-assed incompetence so often go hand in hand? Nadon was rejected because he did not qualify for the appointment under the terms of the constitution. The Harper government recognized as much but thought they could short-circuit the constitution by sticking in a cute little “cheat” in an unrelated budget bill. Thank God that at least some folks – the folks on the Supreme Court, in this case – understand and exercise their own power appropriately.
You all want to complain about how everyone is out to get your poor defenceless majority government without ever questioning why the idiots keep shooting themselves in their own feet. Harper is not crippled by the courts, or the media, or liberal elites. He is crippled by his own blinkered hubris and the sheer incompetence that arises from it.
Yeah well, Harper was bound by the rules to chose appointees from a limited talent pool…..which is the problem in the first place.
I can well see both sides of the argument. You don’t want a PM so powerful that he can re-stack the courts anytime he wants to but on the other hand the courts need to have some sort of check and balance on them so they do not subvert our democracy. For some time now the courts have been too willing to legislate by judicial fiat rather than simply adjudicate the law as passed by Parliament. To put it bluntly we need to get rid of Trudeau’s brain cramp called the Charter.
While ignoring Moldaver’s critical dissent on the decison.
They miss you over at rabble. Go back and agonize over how evil and power mad PMSH is, & how he’s destroying Canada. Ha.
VERY IMPORATNT QUESTION TO ANSWER:
Who brought this ‘case’ to the Supreme Court? You or I cannot bring a case to them …somebody / some organization with standing has to bring a case to the Supreme Court … so …WHO brought them this one?
Nothing I have read or heard (so far) has mentionned WHO caused this appointment to get to the Supreme Court. Their rejection of Nadon in CLEARLY political, and Canadians need to learn WHO SPECIFICALLY is behind the politics of the court’s decision.
This is like a sports team voting on whether or not a new player acquired by management (= the legally elected government of the land) will be allowed to play on the team! … it’s a LUDICROUSLY OUTRAGEOUS development that must not be allowed to stand.
Is it actually written ANYWHERE that SC appointees have to be serving on the Superior court at the time of appointment?
Or are they simply making this garbage up as they go along?
SCC is one of the biggest jokes in the western world.
The justices did apply the law, as written. Harper knows this which is why he tried to rewrite the law, after the fact, and outside of his constitutional authority. The courts very properly said no.
If a Trudeau had tried this bullshit you people would be out burning effigies. And rightly so. No government is above the law, not even the government that appointed Vic Toews to the bench.
This is really about the SCC defending the rights of those who got them there to continue to appoint. In their view the executive is only the figurehead of their appointments. They do not want anything that challenges their right to appoint through “the club”
They won it after the uproar that the Liberals were using it as political reward vs more qualified non Liberals.
Terrible decision. But artlessly handled by Steve-O.
Steve-O should now find the most conservative judge possible from Quebec. One that meets the other criteria but one that the the others on the SCC views would be abhored by. There has to be at least one.
Wouldn’t life be hell for that person? It would have to be someone who is a real s*&t disturber, knows their stuff and can communicate it like none other.
You all want to complain about how everyone is out to get your poor defenceless majority government without ever questioning why the idiots keep shooting themselves in their own feet. Harper is not crippled by the courts, or the media, or liberal elites. He is crippled by his own blinkered hubris and the sheer incompetence that arises from it.
This is the truest most perfect thing I have ever read here. Nothing the SC did was ‘above the law’. Harper has done this before with letting in Wind Mobile: make an ad hoc change to a law, watch it get blown up in courts. He’s so incompetent.
I could have found him a half dozen lawyers that believe the law, as written, is how it should be interpreted and that Parliament should be supreme, except in very unusual cases.
That’s a contradiction. The Law is clear: the Charter is supreme, not parliament, and thank goodness for that. Activist judges are vital to freedom without them we might have no rights. Activist judges are ending Canada’s War on Sex Workers and they just put a nice hole in Harper’s idiotic evil plans to expand the Drug War in Canada.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/21/injunction-allowing-patients-to-continue-growing-pot-a-major-blow-to-tory-overhaul-of-medical-marijuana-system/
Joe “You don’t want a PM so powerful that he can re-stack the courts anytime he wants”
Yes we do. It’s called democracy. They serve to 75 so it doesn’t happen overnight. Parliament is elected and is meant to be partisan. When “impartial tribunals” start making decisions, it’s governance by bureaucracy and that is undemocratic and abhorrent.
Forget an elected Senate, we need an elected Supreme Court, at this point they’re the untouchables, making laws instead of interpreting laws presented to them by the elected House. At this point they should be considered court jesters but sadly the jokes are on the government in power who are too weak kneed to deal with their antics.
Actually scar no you don’t. Imagine if you will a PM such as Mulcair or Trudeau who doesn’t like the SCC preventing him from bringing in the next big socialist orgasm so he fires the court and puts in Oliva Chow, Lorne Calvert etc etc etc.
// the folks on the Supreme Court, in this case – understand and exercise their own power appropriately. //
Good post. And the folks in question probably have been considering their constitutional role pretty carefully, given the changes to the Senate etc that they see coming down the line.
AND they probably have considered Harper’s well-known contempt for any of the institutions & traditions that stand in the way of his “vision” for this “welfare state in the worst sense of the term”.
It’s good to see journos like Blatchford admit the parliament is not the real government of this nation – since 1982 we have been an oligarchy run by an elite appointed body which has final say on all rule of law in the nation – they are the law makers and Parliament just the drafters.
This abomination of concentrating power must be corrected – maybe when quebec leaves we cab finally scrap this feudal charter and start over.
decision from the supreme Just-Us wing, simply confirms that the appointed royalty has precedence over the elected royalty and the taxpaying rabble have none.
Time we have a jury audit our kleptocrats.
If they cannot convince a jury of working persons of their worth, they get fired.
With authority comes responsibility, precious little evidence of any responsibility from our Supremes.
Truth is not a defence when charged with “Hate speech”?
Just-Us is no part of rule of law, civilization requires the removal of such parasites.
Hence the old truth, The Law Is An Ass, this is why A..Holes enforce it.
Our farce of a legal system has plenty of those.
Hmmm Didn’t Canada sign onto UN International law & all the
neat UN mandates?? What do you think that means?
My view is that Harper, the ultimate tactition had clearly foreseen the rejection of Quebecer Nadon by the Supremes and making his next move will be the real marker in the Canadian game.
“It ain’t over ’till it’s over”
“The government went to the extraordinary length of getting a legal opinion on Nadon’s status last summer, paying retired Supreme Court judge Ian Binnie $7,463.65 to write an opinion that was then approved by another former Supreme, Louise Charron, who was paid $4,325.00 for her efforts”
Harper paid big bucks to seek advice from former Supreme Court justices.
Would you believe that Binnie was Liberal (Chretien)appointment to Supreme Court and Binnie was a Liberal appointment (Martin) who gave the advice to Harper to proceed with Nadon appointment.
What does this say about the quality of Liberal appointments to Supreme Court? Is this representative of the decisions they made while sitting on the Supreme Court?
http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2014/03/21/constitutional-lawyer-wonders-why-he-had-to-clean-up-harpers-subversive-mess/#.Uy3egs44uop
This guy,”constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati” is the person who challenged the appointment.
Harper is a conceited idiot who thinks that he can ignore the law when it suits him. The fact that most of the judges that sit on the SCC were appointed by Harper speaks volumes about the stupidity of trying to force this appointment. You people would be howling like mad dogs if a Liberal or NDP government tried to do this.
Those who wish for a government that can make up whatever laws it wants are ignorant idiots who have forgotten what happened in the Germany and the USSR in the 1930s.
Blatchford is an idiot, not a journalist, and she should go back to fellating cops.
“Thinking that Quebec leaving would be the end of the problem is dreaming IMHO.”
Well I don’t know about that. First there would three fewer SCC judges from Quebec as well as 74 (?) fewer MPs. This would severely erode the power of Laurentian elites to control the country.
3 seats set aside for Quebec’s special interests. How do these members represent Canada?
Why not go your own way Quebec, and have all the members of the Supreme Court of Quebec from your own jurisdiction?
As it is now, a comparison in sports. How about in the next time someone from Quebec runs in the national 100 metre championships, they get to start at the 10 metre line? That’ll be more fair for them.
The Montreal Canadiens can have an extra couple of folks on their roster, in case some get tired, because… french.
The Montreal Alouettes can have 4 downs to gain 10 yards, or maybe 3 downs to gain 7 yards, because… french, yeah!
I doubt my opinion of the SCOC could slide lower.
“Those who wish for a government that can make up whatever laws it wants are ignorant idiots who have forgotten what happened in the Germany and the USSR in the 1930s.”
It’s better to use this statement “”Those who wish for a government that can make up whatever laws it wants are ignorant idiots who have forgotten what happened in Canada with the gun laws. They made ordinary citizens criminals for owning guns … just like 1930’s Russia and Germany.”
It helps because some ignorant idiots can’t even remember recent history.
For those of you who see this as an issue of Quebec special treatment, there is a valid reason why there must be three Quebec judges on the Supreme Court – a minimum of three judges is required to create a judicial panel to hear an appeal. As Quebec has a legal system based in part on Roman law the court needs to have three judges experienced in Quebec civil law to be able to hear appeals arising from civil law cases (as an aside, Louisiana also still has a legal system based on Roman law).
It’s also unfair to impugn the advice given by the two retired Supreme Court Justices to the Government. Their opinion was an entirely reasonable and in my opinion the correct one. The government also sought the opinion of Peter Hogg, who despite being a Kiwi is considered the foremost expert on Canadian constitutional law and he agreed with Binnie and Charron. This judgement really is a bit of a surprise, and I think is based on an incorrect reading of the Supreme Court Act.
“I think is based on an incorrect reading of the Supreme Court Act.”
Is there a possibility that the government is able to appeal this decision, or does it lick its wounds and try with another candidate?
∞², great come back. I see a leftist troll scuttling off into the darkness.
No, there is no avenue of appeal as the Supreme Court is the final court of appeal unless the government decides to create a more senior court. I suppose Judge Nadon could try and bring a case based on the violation of his S. 15 Charter Rights which might prove embarrassing for the Court but doubtless they would simply refuse to hear it.
The court did not say Nadon wasn’t qualified to join them, just that he was inelgible for one of the 3 Quebec seats. He is qualified, and has passed the Quebec bar exam at some point, just that it was a long while ago. It’s not as if Harper was nominating his driver, the judge is competent.As competent for sure as Rosie Abella, one of Martin’s appointments. The difference seems to be that conservatives had to lump the nomination of Abella, but liberals will not do the same for Nadon. Let Harper nominate Nadon for a different seat on the SCC, then see what kind of objections are raised.
Yes, because having to get a permit is EXACTLY the same as being put into a concentration camp. Idiot.
Just like a fish the rot in the liberal party starts in the head. The liberal party is a cancer on this land that must eradicated or this country is screwed.
Formerly the property right of citizens, becomes that which is not permitted is forbidden.
The stripping society of weapons and state theft of property have, historically been the steps before the concentration camps, mass imprisonments and slaughter.
Of citizens by their ever-loving conscientious governments.
Get a permit or be considered a criminal, go to the gun registry, get run around to infinity= deliberate plan to create new criminal from formerly law supporting citizens.
Oh nameless troll, the mirror may show you the true idiot.
Guns are not a “right”, they are a privilege. Idiot.
Guns are not a “right”, they are a privilege.
Get bent. You don’t get to decide what’s a right and what’s not. You’d better get used to them it is not getting harder to smuggle them in from America.
The Supreme Court majority six’s interpretation is debatable.
The two provisions in question of the Supreme Court Act read as follows:
5. Any person may be appointed a judge who is or has been a judge of a superior court of a province or a barrister or advocate of at least ten years standing at the bar of a province.
6. At least three of the judges shall be appointed from among the judges of the Court of Appeal or of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec or from among the advocates of that Province.
The Six argued that a “textual” interpretation of the provisions, in particular the latter, mean that a former member of the Quebec bar is ineligible. This is plausible.
However, its claim that this analysis is consistent with the underlying purpose of s.6 is far less convincing.
If s.6 had merely read, “Three of the judges shall be from Quebec”, no interpretation would be necessary. To interpret s.6 as referring back to s.5 so that “from among the advocates” specifically meant “is or has been … a barrister or advocate” from Quebec is entirely reasonable. I believe this in essence is what Justice Moldaver did, in dissent. He writes, referring to examples including Federal Court judges from Quebec, “Why such persons, otherwise eligible for appointment to this court by virtue of their 10 years standing at the bar, would suddenly become unacceptable to the people of Quebec on the day of their elevation to the bench escapes me.” (paragraph 147) The majority apparently believes that a non-current Quebec barrister would not be adequately trained in civil law, even though he might have been appointed a judge.
The majority six claim that the 1875 version of the Supreme Court Act bolsters their argument, but this too is dubious. Section 4 of that Act, which was later split into the current ss.5-6:
4. Her Majesty may appoint, by letters patent, under the Great Seal of Canada, one person, who is, or has been, a Judge of one of the Superior Courts in any of the Provinces forming part of the Dominion of Canada, or who is a Barrister or Advocate of at least ten years’ standing at the Bar of any one of the said Provinces, to be Chief Justice of the said Court, and five persons who are, or have been, respectively, Judges of one of the said Superior Courts, or who are Barristers or Advocates of at least ten years’ standing at the Bar of one of the said Provinces, to be Puisne Judges of the said Court, two of whom at least shall be taken from among the Judges of the Superior Court or Court of Queen’s Bench, or the Barristers or Advocates of the Province of Quebec; (I have highlighted in bold the relevant portion)
The problem is that the language in the bolded section is ambiguous. If “respectively” had been omitted, it would be clear that a former lawyer would be ineligible to be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. However, if “who are” before “Barristers or Advocates” had been omitted, it would be clear that he would be eligible.
The majority of six are on even shakier ground when they write that Parliament cannot change the provisions of the Supreme Court Act:
“Parliament cannot unilaterally change the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada. Essential features of the Court are constitutionally protected under Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982. Changes to the composition of the Court can only be made under the procedure provided for in s. 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and therefore require the unanimous consent of Parliament and the provincial legislatures. Changes to the other essential features of the Court can only be made under the procedure provided for in s. 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which requires the consent of at least seven provinces representing, in the aggregate, at least half of the population of all the provinces.” (paragraph 74)
But here’s the relevant portions of Section 41 of the Constitution Act:
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
…
(d) the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada
…
But note that this only applies to amendments to “the Constitution of Canada”, and not to amendments to mere legislation. The Court’s interpretation on this point does indeed seem bizarre, as the Prime Minister said.
Note that the majority six went for a narrow “textual” interpretation of a legislative act when they wanted to but a very broad and possibly ridiculous interpretation of a constitutional clause when it suited their purposes. I hate to use the word “hypocrisy”, but they’re certainly lacking in consistency, and that’s highly problematic in the law. The Court seems to engage in a highly convoluted, bent-over-backwards process to apply s.41 of the 1982 Constitution to the Supreme Court Act.
No doubt, part of the problem is that the law is apparently circular. The Constitution mentions the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court Act is ordinary legislation that is subordinate to it. I’ve listed a few dozen errors in the Constitution (especially the Charter of Rights) before. It looks like here’s another one.
“Yes, because having to get a permit is EXACTLY the same as being put into a concentration camp. Idiot.”
Well, actually no … at least not in Germany. In fact, Hitler didn’t even want to go where the libs went. Stalin had the same compunctions as the the libs.
Hint: If you want to use examples, make sure they are accurate.
It is a right, to keep whatever is available to defend yourself and your family. Automatic, or hidden under my jacket, or 15 in a magazine, doesn’t matter.
Not for example, “whatever is reasonable” to defend your person and family. What? a sharpened ruler or pen? er, no.
Others have at times mocked this with such wisdoms as, “you don’t have the right to defend your family with an atomic bomb” … “a cannon, or tank”? of course not, that would kill / hurt others.
But a gun, or whatever the gov’t typically keeps in order to keep you in line, is a right and as such, when the gov’t decides you don’t have that right, it is to be mocked. Mocked between friends, or mocked openly.
There are not very many reasons as to why, if I was to be forced to sit on a jury in a trial in which gun rights were asserted, that I would find for guilt. We’re sovereign, that’s why. Nothing the RCMP in their mashing of individual rights, or liberal gov’t anywhere, can take that freedom from us.
It’s, ultra vires.
It would be especially pleasing to me, to have PMSH simply point out the SCOC’s inconstant application of what is constitutional and what is legislatively permitted, and then reappoint Mr. Nadon again.
and again after that if need be.
I’m reminded of Bev’s speech in New Zealand years ago in which she told the audience to simply make up law when needed, then write it into law.
@nv53 I arrived at the same conclusions as you did about what was meant by ss 5 and 6. The fact that the term advocate was used in S 5 suggested to me that this section applies to the entire country including Quebec and that S 6 needs to be read in conjunction with S 5 and not separately from it.
I haven’t examined the separate issue of the constitutional status of the Supreme Court Act in any depth, but it seems to be the result of poor or incomplete drafting by the people who put the Constitution Act 1982 together. I wish we had a strain of originalist constitutional scholarship and judicial interpretation as they do in the US, as we might have a better idea of what the drafters intended.
Sure, protect your family. I suppose your life is just like a Deathwish movie, and you’re Charles Bronson. Except that if faced with a real situation, you would crap your pants first.
So apparently we have laws that dictate that one province is more equal than the rest and this the law of the land because we have a constitution that mandates that everyone is to be equal before the same court.
“I wish we had a strain of originalist constitutional scholarship and judicial interpretation as they do in the US, as we might have a better idea of what the drafters intended.”
Unfortunately, and quite obviously, we do not have originalists on the SC, we have activists, including most members appointed by the PM. I was not going to comment on this but I can’t keep my trap shut any longer. This was yet another unbelievably stupid blunder by folks who should know better. The SC has been telegraphing for years that they will use any excuse they can find to make law and obstruct the will of parliament, yet they hand them an excuse to throw mud in PM Harper’s face with great effect. Ms Blatchford’s words are poor comfort after the fact and will simply be viewed as crying over spilt milk, no matter how right she may be. This was a serious tactical blunder on a scale I though impossible. This was an “own goal” as the British say and it will take some fancy footwork to reverse the damage. I pray to God there is someone, anyone, in the PMO who is clever enough to turn this into an advantage and prove me wrong!
It’s always been my understanding the SC interprets the laws handed them by the elected Parliament and it’s up to the elected government to accept the interpretation or turn it down. I also think when governments send contentious issues to the SC for interpretation they can then use it for their own political advantage, accept it or turn it down accordingly.It’s using the SC as a cop out on tough or controversial decisions.
My commentary isn’t based on anything that I may suppose. There are many folks in the frozen wastelands here in Canada that are well trained for these life changing events, and crapping ones pants isn’t part of the protagonist’s playbook.
Ownership of property, such tools as firearms, is a privilege ?
Extended by whom?
Your right to breathe, is protected how?
Your projections of old Bronson Movies exposed your lack of logic, the mirror will show you that idiot you keep calling out to.
So am I also to be privileged to retain the use of my body? It to is a weapon, also inherited from my parents.
Or will I need a permit for my mind, sought from your “authority” .
Who decides?
Who is this bestower of privilege you fall back on?
The Liberal Party MPs? Supreme Court? Your local JP? Constable Bob?
C68 sure worked all, Eh?
5 to 19 million guns, by RCMP estimates, disappeared.
Where did the weapons of the estimated 7 million gun owners, with an estimated 3 weapons each, go? The final tally was less than 2 million weapons registered, when the long gun registry was “destroyed”.
Democracy is a b**ch Komrade.
What is right and what is a privilege depends on which side of the aisle you occupy…..or whether you are a cop.
Cops and the left side of the political spectrum desire/seek a monopoly on the use of force.
That’s what High River wuz all aboot.
I figure it’s healthy for a government to fear it’s people, rather than for a people to fear their government.
If LEO’s with smgs is reasonable and not a menace to public safety then logically a civilian with an smg is not a public menace (violent career felons and folks with violent mental issues excepted).
Woodstock On saw a career OPP constable, Jack Ross, gunned down by a trigger happy OPP swat type with a ripper(smg).
I really don’t like the idea of cops wearing masks…..