Harper's Supreme Court appointee rejected by Supreme Court

[SebC]

FAIL!

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03...p-court-rules/

Stephen Harper’s latest appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada, Marc Nadon, is not eligible to sit on the high court.

In a landmark ruling Friday, the Supreme Court nullified Nadon’s appointment to the top court, and asserted the Harper government couldn’t make changes to the court’s makeup without opening up the Constitution.

The 6-1 decision was a stunning political defeat for the Harper government, which had faced legal opposition to Nadon’s appointment hours after he was sworn in as a justice, and political opposition from the Quebec government.

[strombad]

[photon]

Makes me laugh every time.

[Ace]

This made me laugh out loud

“We shouldn’t play politics … with justice issues like this,” Boivin said. “The court doesn’t play politics.”

[Bobblehead]

What bugs me about this is the legislation to attempt to allow this change was buried in the middle of one of the massive omnibus budgets.

What other things have been slid through without getting the debate or the publicity they should have been afforded?

Transparent government my ass.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Ace

This made me laugh out loud

Generally speaking our Supreme Court is good at not playing politics. The justices appointed are very good at making rational decisions based on the law.

In this case, without reading the whole decision, I'm inclined to agree with the logic of the majority.

There are two requirements to be appointed to the Supreme Court if you are from Québec: (1) be a justice of one of Québec's superior courts; (2) a lawyer in good standing for 10+ years.

Harper's appointee is neither of these as he is a judge of a federal court.


IF our Supreme Court played politics then the Bedford decision would had the complete opposite outcome.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

IF our Supreme Court played politics then the Bedford decision would had the complete opposite outcome.

Eh?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by SebC

Eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_...al)_v._Bedford

It's the recent case that resulted in Canada's prostitution laws being thrown out effective next year. What MQ-S is saying is that if the Supreme Court was merely a pawn of the sitting government of the day, then the outcome of that case would have been different as it clearly was not the ruling The Harper Government wanted.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_...al)_v._Bedford

It's the recent case that resulted in Canada's prostitution laws being thrown out effective next year. What MQ-S is saying is that if the Supreme Court was merely a pawn of the sitting government of the day, then the outcome of that case would have been different as it clearly was not the ruling The Harper Government wanted.

Exactly,

5 of 9 justices that heard the case were appointed by Harper. If the SCC was a political pawn, those 5 would have sided with Harper's ideals and not the laws as written.