[MBates]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

In some cases you seem to like arguing for the sake of it, which, fine, but come on. We both know there is a world of difference between the situation in the United States and the situation here. We are not teetering on some precipice that could swiftly lead to our judicial situation becoming like it is down there. And yes, sure, the observation of norms has a lot to do with that, but there is a significant difference in the politicization of the judiciary between the two countries, and linking to a globe article isn't going to convince anyone otherwise. This is a culture that has been festering down there for decades.

As for the importance of the PC, we're literally talking about a situation where the courts are being used for an attempted coup. The PC doesn't have that type of power. And we can argue all day about their role in interpreting the Charter, and whether or not appellate courts would ever allow a consequential, politically motivated ruling with broad implications to stand simply because of facts found at first instance, but it would be pointlessly hypothetical and, as you said, a total derail.

Lessons learned are well and good, but the suggestion that Canada is at risk of becoming like the USA in this regard (or even at greater risk due to our parliamentary system) is hyperbolic and alarmist to the point of silliness.

Not to be argumentative (sarcasm intended) but it is a discussion board...personally I come here for, well, discussion and indeed argument on important societal topics.

I am not sure what you found “hyperbolic and alarmist” in my post. I know how to use hyperbole and alarm but was not doing it there.

The derail I risked (and still do I guess) was indeed talking about the politicization of the appointment process in Canada and the incorrect statement that the Alberta Provincial Court does not make important decisions that matter to people and indeed to our actual constitutional law.

I will readily concede all arguments I never made (that Canada is teetering on a precipice, for example). I can also acknowledge without difficulty our system is not currently anywhere near as infected by politics as the US.

But an ad hominem attack on a “Globe article” strangely disputed nothing of the facts...the facts being a liberal federally appointed judge and her liberal MP husband were very recently caught, and the sitting judge sanctioned, for inappropriately influencing who got appointed to the bench. All things that happened in present day Canada. Do you think that inappropriate influence of appointments was for something other than political purposes?

In the end my on-topic point is that the things you say make us miles apart (or should I say kilometers) from the US are not as protected as you suggest they are from an elected official willing to attack our institutions and norms.

The reality is we do not have senate confirmations and the self imposed voluntary restrictions on who cabinet appoints to the bench can simply be disregarded.

Heck, we even have the situation of a judge being actually appointed to the SCC in spite of the fact the Constitution barred his appointment and him having to be ordered by the sitting SCC that he couldn’t join them. Can the US even match us on such a debacle?

And when everyone was done asking, who is Marc Nadon and how did he even make it to a list of possible SCC appointments in the first place? They wondered aloud whether it could possibly have had anything to do with his dissent in a case which some may remember became a tiny bit political in Canada:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nationa...d91fa0e47/amp/

He was on “nobody’s short list,” McGill University law professor Robert Leckey was quoted as saying earlier this year. Mr. Leckey added that he was not even sure he was “on anybody’s long list.”

What likely distinguished Mr. Nadon, however, was his most prominent ruling: A 2009 dissent against the court order repatriating Canadian child terrorist Omar Khadr from the U.S.-run Guantanamo Bay prison.

That ruling “was likely one of the primary reasons the government decided to roll the dice on his appointment,” Bruce Ryder, an associate professor at the Osgoode Hall Law School, wrote in an email to the National Post.
He added “the strong deference he showed to decisions taken by the Canadian government distinguished him in the field and would have commended him strongly to the Conservative members of the selection panel, the justice minister and the prime minister.”

In the end, an international judicial watch organization weighed in on whether our Prime Minister and his Justice Minister or the Chief Justice of Canada were responsible for inappropriate conduct regarding appointments to our highest court:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...overnment.html

Heckman also welcomed the ICJ’s observation that some of the controversy might have been avoided if Canada had an independent body to select judicial candidates and clear procedures for consultation between the executive and the judiciary.

But enough alarm and hyperbole, back to criticism of places where the appointment of judges to courts with actual power for political purposes is an actual thing that could ever even happen...