30 Replies to “Pitchforks And Flaming Dildoes”

  1. Hey, speaking of flaming dildoes and the US….is McGuinty still at Harvard?

  2. Hypocrisy, liberal is thy name. Actually this is a non-issue compared to the fact that SCOTUS forced this issue on the electorate. It’s time that the politicians did their job and slapped the courts down to were they belong in the pecking order, but it’s too convenient for the pols to let the courts make the unpopular decisions, so the pols don’t lose the votes of their supporters. I personally don’t care if Joe marries Joe, or Jane marries Jane, as long as they leave me out of it on a personal level. But forcing issues in courts is not how a democracy works.

  3. Agreed, and if I may add, they have to be constantly in your face and ram it down everybody’s throats and try and teach our kids and grandchildren to be the same as them.
    As to Ben’s question, there would be rioting in streets.

  4. And here I thought that lighting the CN Tower up with NDP colours in honour of Jack Layton was the height of partisan tackiness. Clearly I hadn’t seen nothin’ yet.

  5. Just shows you the Obama-Nation’s™ true colours…an intellectual and genetic cul de sac.
    Cheers
    Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
    1st Saint Nicolaas Army
    Army Group ‘True North’

  6. The number of times the Supreme Court in Canada has played Parliament recently is disturbing. Sometimes every week the idiots are over-ruling something our elected representatives decided. And the jurisprudence seems so random or non-existent. I am still not sure why the Supreme Court approved medical marijuana without clinical trials. So who do people sue when it is found to be damaging to health? When the Supreme Court is responsible, apparently no-one is responsible.

  7. “I am still not sure why the Supreme Court approved medical marijuana without clinical trials.”
    I’m guessing they’re recreational users. It would certainly explain a lot of their past rulings.

  8. Canada does NOT have a legal system, we have a “lawyer” system. Most, if not all, judges are, or were lawyers. They are unaccountable to the peasants; they make their own rules.
    “I am still not sure why the Supreme Court approved medical marijuana without clinical trials.” – they make their own “rules”.

  9. Given the recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court and the caving in by Republicans, I really wonder how much the snooping by the NSA has given the Obama administration blackmail material on those same justices and opposition politicians. Self-preservation is important and the republic be dam(n)ed

  10. “Most, if not all, judges are, or were lawyers.”
    I had an uncle-in-law who was one of the last non-lawyer judges in Manitoba. He held court every week and a regular judge came out once a month for trials. He tended to be a hanging judge so everyone pleaded not guilty in front of him and changed their plea in front of the regular judge. I think a great idea might be to disallow lawyers from becoming judges.

  11. Kate, your header gave me iced-tea through the nose. Wonderful imagery. Wonderful, terrible imagery. Well done.
    Now where’s the eye bleach?

  12. Funny that the little president had gay lights all ready to go…
    But anyhow, now that they have a judicial hammer with this ruling, everything will look like a nail…
    No backlash has ever occurred to liberal policies, maybe that will change.

  13. Great idea, elected-non-lawyer-judges. But at least let’s make “good hair” a prerequisite.

  14. The grow-your-own medical marijuana ruling is particularly concerning. Effectively, it means that the role of the health protection and drug approval branches of the department of health and welfare are now obsolete. Want a new drug approved? Don’t go through long and expensive clinical trials; just get a lobby together to howl that it’s your right to use and make it! If a prescription for medical marijuana is a license to make your own, then a prescription for analgesics should be a license to grow your own opium and turn out your own morphine, heroine or whatever. Diagnosis of ADHD = license to make your own amphetamines. If not, why not? Where does it end? Or does it?

  15. Doc, with respect to your profession, Lysenko-ism has been with us for quite some time, not only in the various treatment aspects in the medical fields, but particularly in the climate sciences

  16. While generally agree with and support the idea of a “court of second sober thought”. I’m not impressed, at all, with the recent rulings of either the Mclachlan or the Roberts Supreme Courts. Something that has concerned me over the last few years is the problem of jurists, who masy be well schooled in law, are increasingly naive and incompetent in most other areas. Spending your early years bending and twisting to be the political favourite to advance your lawyerly career leaves precious little time to learn much else, and its beginning to show on the bench. Most lawyers graduate with only a thin BA degree and their LLB. Hardly a broad education in most of life’s issues. Most well run court proceedings, allow for expert testimony for the technical stuff, but activist judges don’t accept those depositions if it run counter to their ideology, and since the topics are often quite complex, their incompetence shows in their ruling. If they would stick to the law and the ordinary and legal meanings of words and rule on that basis, they could muddle through. But when they think they are qualified to deviate from that is when they intellectual shortcomings shine through.
    At the Supreme court level, I have always believed that NO law, nor constitutional interpretation should change UNLESS THERE IS UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT OF ALL JUSTICES HEARING THE MATTER. Where the court is split, they produce their favorable and dissenting OPINIONS, but no judgement is rendered, i.i., the status quo does not change at this time. This would have the effect of forcing a more objective debate, slow down the the big societal changes, and cause ideologies to come together. Yes it will mean hung courts at times. That’s not a bad thing. Couple it with term limits (or a parliamentary re-affirmation of the appointment on a regular basis) and you might (*might*) see some stability in the core legal framework.
    Today, the US stands on the edge of a precipice. It’s an open question whether the balance of Obama’s term will end without a republic-shattering incident. Personally, I don’t think they’ll make it.

  17. Skip – largely agreed. Most professions change too much in the electoral term for professionals to be able to seek one or two terms and then return to their normal work. The most noticeable exception is the legal profession. It does apply to education and some fields of medicine to a lesser degree, but the requirement to stay current means that Engineers, technologists and other technical fields cannot seek office unless they want to spend a couple of years unemployed and upgrading their skills after serving as an elected member. This results in over-representation of the legal field within the elected membership.
    The pre-requisite of a unanimous agreement before law changes, is this intended to be similar to the council of barons that reportedly governed Poland for a couple of years without passing a single bill because unanimous agreement between often competing factions meant that agreement was possible in theory, but never in reality? Not that I’d complain about a freezing of law while the individual’s rights don’t depend upon skin tone, ancestory, and sexual preference; I would prefer to know the intent of your statement.

  18. The upside here is the homos can’t use this as an election issue anymore. Support for or against gay marriage is a “matter for the courts” next question please.

  19. BTW only fags get married now a days anyway. Any man who marries a woman in this day and age is a complete fool.

  21. james you made me LOL. thank you!!
    If you are a woman 35 or younger you are about as useful to a real man as a glass hammer, or tits on a bull!!
    I have lots of convos with women of these ages and they are stupid. flat out stupid ignorant useless they have no idea how to cook clean please a man can barely provide for themselves just good at swallowing with out flinching thats about it.
    Have no good mothering skills just think push it out and drop it off at day care while i go to work as a “nurse” teacher or some other gov funded job

  23. The same bunch of eletists journalists who claim the U.S. Constitution dont give americans the right to Keep and Bear Arms claim the same constitution gives two men the right to marry Typicatwo faced liberal media bloodsuckers

  24. What it would do is prevent reduce the ideological hi-jacking of the court on matters of grave consequence: constitutional issues, legislative hi-jacking, re-definition of legal modalites etc. like what is occuring in our respective Supreme Courts. It wouldn’t apply to appellate-type hearings unless there was fundamentally a constitutional chanllenge implicit in the hearing. What happened this week in the US in both cases should never have happened in a Supreme Court based on the US Constitution and the delegation of powers and authorities in the US political system. The actual decsiion topics are irrelevant – the issue is how the court twisted its mandate to arrive at its decisions. It is one thing for the court to determine if statute is unconstitutional, or judiciarily dysfunctional. Its quite something else to change the meaning of a statute’s language in order for the law to say something other than the legislative function wrote.
    So far, in Canada, the court usually sends the law back to the legislature to be rewritten into a more appropriate format for enforcement. This US Supreme court did not do this – it literally changed the meaning of words in the statute as written, so that it meant, and would be interpreted, a different way. The obscurity applies to settled legal definitions – no law in the US can now be presumed to say what is written. Worse, what those law now say and mean is dependent entirely on the capriciousness of the judiciary. To paraphrase the worst president in US history,”If you like your law, you can keep your law”, or, to the legislature, “you didn’t write that”.

  25. scar….. in the province of Ontario a lawyer must practice for ten years before he/she can be eligible to be appointed a judge.

  27. There is a glimmer of hope.
    When the left achieves what it wants they inevitability move the goal posts.
    The silver lining is that they start demanding purity among their followers and none of them define their ideology identically, fluidity being a feature of leftist dogma.
    The end result is an inevitable civil war among them.
    Grab some popcorn and pray for an asteriod.

  28. Joseph. One of the most ‘on target statements’ in years. I love popcorn. And asteroids.

  29. This ruling and several others, both in Canada and the US, indicate that we need to have a serious discussion regarding the powers of courts in general. The implicit meaning of these rulings is that the people are just too stupid to govern themselves.

  30. “I love popcorn. And asteroids.”
    OK. Why do they call it an asteroid when it’s outside the troposphere, but call it a hemorrhoid when it’s in your butt?

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation