Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 5 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5873
Reputation: 286.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My question is -- why isn't this recognized as an abuse of power?

It seems to me to be akin an obstruction of justice, only using a judicial decision to thwart a piece of legitimate legislation. Is this not criminal simply because it was done by a judge? Is what he has done even against the law?

You want your courts to be out of politics. If Balababa enters a political dispute in this manner, can I call this a contemptible incompetent in public? Nobody wants all the contemptible incompetents on the benches exposed to language like that.

Can I now, after the decision is overturned, haul this judge before a TV camera to ask for him to account for himself?

You don't want that. The judiciary isn't very good as they are, so you surely don't want to encourage them into an arena where people get to talk back.

I propose they introduce a "Belobaba Clause" into whatever course in how-to-treat-female-testimony they're taking this week. His name should live in judicial infamy in Osgoode Hall -- the judge that provoked the Notwithstanding clause ... wrongly!
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 8075
Reputation: 322.5Reputation: 322.5
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
My question is -- why isn't this recognized as an abuse of power?


Because the media doesn't like Ford.

The ruling was reckless, but what is worse is that it was legally lazy.
Using the charter when interpretation of existing Provincial Law would have easily been enough to make a similar ruling made this entirely about feelings and not about the law.

Making this a charter issues simply dared Ford to use the Notwithstanding clause and make the entire past week about "Ford's lack of respect for the Constitution" rather than a ruling that effectively implied that governments were not allowed to get smaller because it effected my Charter freedom of self expression.

An election was held, Ford won by a fairly wide margin, he has the mandate the govern.
Attempting to manipulate the Constitution to override that mandate shouldn't be cheered by anyone.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5873
Reputation: 286.5
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One of the interesting things in the aftermath ...

The 'notwithstanding clause' has worked as it should. True, the threat had to be brandished, but it all got straightened out in a timely manner.

It has been so marginalized that I had almost forgotten about it. It's like a 3 iron you never use but lug around because you wouldn't want to break up a set.

Harper should have used it. It has become a 'thing' for environmental and indigenous groups to use the procedure to endlessly jam up projects for essentially ideological reasons.

There is fair and responsible environmental review. Ditto with the other concerns. But at some point, you quit cutting bait and start to fish.

What I find surprising is, while the media is stirring the outrage pot, nobody's very outraged. It all seems to have worked out. Nothing bad happened.

There is a question about a check and balance on the Courts. I think the solution for judges who assume the role of philosopher king should involve horsewhips.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 8075
Reputation: 322.5Reputation: 322.5
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think in several cases;
Harper had the gift of time.

He could appeal lower court rulings and usually get them heard in a timely manner.

This instance required the potential intervention of the clause;
The ruling was overreach, there was a fear that the appeal wouldn't be heard and ruled on prior to the Toronto Election. Therefore its use was justified given the situation.

I would have been far more outraged had the lower court decision delayed the legislation only to be overturned on appeal after the election.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 5 of 5

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Ford to reduce the size of Toronto city council

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB