Originally Posted by AR_Six

I imagine it'd look much like the lawyers in Smith arguing that the Supreme Court was wrong in Moldowan. They won.

I can validly make an argument, equivalent to any other argument presented by anyone else, that the principles of a particular charter provision are contravened by a particular piece of legislation. And yes, that applies equally in a court - in addressing a charter issue the position is either that the law is contrary to the charter or not. There is no pre-judgment as to whether that position is right or wrong, and it is usually a nuanced argument.

Right, no difference whatsoever between observing a physical fact and taking a position on an issue of constitutional law. Brilliant point.

I don't know where you got this, it's absolute nonsense. The notion that because I think some laws are unconstitutional and should be struck down means that I think all laws should be is bizarre.

Your opinion appears to be that the SCC can't be wrong in its interpretation of the charter - that whatever they say the charter means is what it means. That is crazy talk.