The Decline of the Liberal Party- Swerved Into a Confederation Topic

[Fishbone Jones]

One problem with introducing partisan politics into choosing judges is that it's all well and good when you agree with the politicians putting them into place. I suspect there might be calls for changes if a government one doesn't like gets its turn to pack the bench.

There has to be a more arms-length system for picking judges, but be careful what you wish for re: parliamentary committee interrogations of would-be jurists.

Why? If they are good, proper and fair, then they have nothing to hide. I feel that it is our right to know the intimate details about what drives their decisions. They aren't special or omnipotent. They are just another person applying for good high paying government job. We are paying them, they work for us, not the PMO, they affect the way we live and how we live. I want to know everything professional about the person that holds the keys to my freedom and laws. A simple look at their latest decisions give me cause to worry. Especially when our vaunted, hand picked justices just said that paedos and other sex offenders no longer have to be registered as sex offenders when convicted. What next? No DNA data bank of violent and sexual predators? Now you can have a paedo, rapist, peeping Tom next door to your young family and you have no idea what danger lives there anymore. That's why they should be vetted by committee. Exactly because of those judges we knew nothing about. It's a stretch, but trudeau and the grits have connections to people convicted of these crimes. Maybe they said they don't like the scrutiny they get and asked trudeau to look into it?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And term limits on senators, maybe MPs and SC Judges also.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I'm going to go out on a limb and go the other direction; democracy isn't working at all, bring on Zog for PM! No partisan political divisions, no federal/provincial/local splits of responsibility, just one leader backed up by overwhelming power and literal invincibility.

Benevolent dictatorship for everyone!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm going to go out on a limb and go the other direction; democracy isn't working at all, bring on Zog for PM! No partisan political divisions, no federal/provincial/local splits of responsibility, just one leader backed up by overwhelming power and literal invincibility.

Benevolent dictatorship for everyone!

We already have that. You spelled trudeau wrong.

 

[brihard]

Why? If they are good, proper and fair, then they have nothing to hide. I feel that it is our right to know the intimate details about what drives their decisions. They aren't special or omnipotent. They are just another person applying for good high paying government job. We are paying them, they work for us, not the PMO, they affect the way we live and how we live. I want to know everything professional about the person that holds the keys to my freedom and laws. A simple look at their latest decisions give me cause to worry. Especially when our vaunted, hand picked justices just said that paedos and other sex offenders no longer have to be registered as sex offenders when convicted. What next? No DNA data bank of violent and sexual predators? Now you can have a paedo, rapist, peeping Tom next door to your young family and you have no idea what danger lives there anymore. That's why they should be vetted by committee. Exactly because of those judges we knew nothing about. It's a stretch, but trudeau and the grits have connections to people convicted of these crimes. Maybe they said they don't like the scrutiny they get and asked trudeau to look into it?

Uh… That’s not what that SCC case realy means at all. The decision struck down 2011 legislation that took away crown and judicial discretion to seek registration and made it mandatory for any and all sexual offences. Have we not had previous discussions on this board about how ‘sexual assault’ as a criminal offence may be getting applied in an overly broad manner? All this decision does is allow judges or crown prosecutors to make judgment calls when the facts fit. This doesn’t mean paedophiles will be off the hook to register.

Supreme Court of Canada - 39360

www.scc-csc.ca

As for appointments to the SCC, beginning with the most recent appointee (and she is, IMHO, very highly qualified), SCC justices are now recommended by an independent advisory board who publish various records including the candidate questionnaire. I encourage anyone concerned about the process to give this a read.

Supreme Court of Canada Appointment Process - 2022

Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada

www.fja.gc.ca

I’m not convinced that taking our essential appointments and subjecting them to the same nonsense partisan theatrics that we see in ‘Question’ Period will be to our country’s advantage. The utter gong show America makes of such proceedings is, to me, far more cautionary than inspirational.

 

[Remius]

I'm going to go out on a limb and go the other direction; democracy isn't working at all, bring on Zog for PM! No partisan political divisions, no federal/provincial/local splits of responsibility, just one leader backed up by overwhelming power and literal invincibility.

Benevolent dictatorship for everyone!

Plato would agree with you.

Aristocracy with benevolent philosopher king being his gvt of choice

 

[Kirkhill]

Plato would agree with you.

Aristocracy with benevolent philosopher king being his gvt of choice

And where are Athens and the Tyrants now? Meanwhile the Barbarians are still with us.

Up the Barbarians!

 

[KevinB]

My proposal would be a restructured Senate, with each province guaranteed six seats, each territory three, and forty more divided by population (always rounding up - so more like 53 additional seats). Senators would be elected in provincial elections - based on popular vote of the provincial parties, with half at risk every provincial election.

You have the HoC for population.
Besides with the 6 / province and 3 for territory, if you dropped the 40 others you could get rid of a few million a year with them and their staff.

Puts provincial representation in Parliament, plus gives some security of tenure for a longer term perspective. Plus encourages provincial participation in elections - even if your riding is guaranteed to elect a party you disagree with, your vote is counted to determine your Senate representation.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Subjecting appointments to review by a body other than the House would be more democratic and would safeguard against abuse (of any parts of the process that aren't "written down").

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Subjecting appointments to review by a body other than the House would be more democratic and would safeguard against abuse (of any parts of the process that aren't "written down").

I agree Brad, but who would decide who to employ, what parameters and what info would they be privy to? Currently, we know what the makeup would be and that a liberal shell company would be benefitting from millions of our tax dollars.

 

[Eaglelord17]

This is all kind of for not, isn't it? I mean, scream and reveal all you want, but even if the Liberals are as bad as everyone says they are, and the Liberals lose and we see another 8-10 years of Conservative governments, the Liberals will be back soon enough. They aren't going anywhere.

100% true. The Conservatives are also not that different fundamentally from the Liberals, more a couple differences on a few talking points than a overall huge difference. Historically the Liberals and Conservatives were closer on platforms than the Liberals to the NDP, it is only the current PM which has shifted the Liberal party so far from center.

The hope would be if the Liberals get thrashed at elections they dump JT and realign themselves back to the center instead of this out lefting the NDP thing they have going on. As much as the left likes to point out that 60% of Canadians voted 'left' I would argue it is more 60% voted center with 10-30% respectively voting left or right. I know several people who are diehard Liberal supporters and have voted Liberal for years talking about voting Conservative just because they do not like where JT is bringing that party.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Why? If they are good, proper and fair, then they have nothing to hide ...

Well, a lot of politics, like the meaning of "good, proper and fair", is in the eye of the beholder.

How many people who, say, hate PMJT would trust questions & interpretations from Liberal or NDP committee members vs. those from Conservative members? And how many of those haters would be OK with a Liberal-stacked committee ok'ing someone the haters didn't like?

How many Anything But Team Blue people would trust or believe questions/interpretations from Conservative members? And how many of those haters would be OK with a Conservative-stacked committee ok'ing someone the haters didn't like?

Think of any other appointment that's already done this way - winning team boosters'll say it's all on the up-and-up, winning team haters'll say it's all biased & crooked. Just like politics runs now.

 

[brihard]

Subjecting appointments to review by a body other than the House would be more democratic and would safeguard against abuse (of any parts of the process that aren't "written down").

So again, like the Independent Advisory Board for Supreme Court appointments that I linked to a few posts up? The product of their work in the appointment of Justice O’Bonsawain is available to look at, and the product of that independent advisory’s first use has been the appointment of an excellent jurist.

 

[OldSolduer]

Darth Vader please.

 

[torg003]

I sense a disturbance in the "Force".

 

[OldSolduer]

I sense a disturbance in the "Force".

With Darth at least you know where you stand.

 

[torg003]

With Darth at least you know where you stand.

Or kneel, as the case may be.

 

[Brad Sallows]

No, not an independent advisory board. The Senate.

 

[Navy_Pete]

No, not an independent advisory board. The Senate.

So replace the all part advisory board made up of elected (and theoretically accountable) MPs with an advisory board from the unaccountable all party Senators?

The Senate is a bit less accountable/transparent than HoC so not sure how that will be an improvement.

Honestly think the current advisory board does a pretty good job, our judiciary similarly does a good job at keeping whatever political leanings they have out of their decisions.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The criteria for designing government should never be "this does a pretty good job right now". Any small group is liable to capture by special interests, given enough time.

The whole point is to require two core pieces of the government - in this case Parliament (via the PM) and Senate - to come to agreement on major appointments. That Senate is unelected is still a weakness, but it's a lot harder to co-opt a Senate majority than a small majority of some board.