Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Danielle Smith doesn't like having checks and balances

Alberta's Smith says courts should not be gatekeepers on constitutional questions


https://www.thecanadianpressnews.ca/...3ee1ba645.html

Her view is basically that once elected, a government can do anything they want without restriction. Laws should not prevent an elected official from doing anything. This, if you need clarifying, is insane. It's also basically Donald Trump's view of governing. Not shocking she'd choose the path of a dementia addled diaper filler, given her tendency to gravitate towards the dumbest #### imaginable.

[Titan2]

How can the premier of a province (puke in my mouth) be so ignorant about the actual, literal construction of our democratic system? Being a gatekeeper on constitutional questions is the entire reason for courts' existence. That she can espouse this view and retain any supporters at all is actually astounding.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by troutman

Stephan writes article for Western Standard rag. Gets roasted in his Facebook.

https://www.westernstandard.news/opi...-alberta/69571

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1AJ...ibextid=wwXIfr

I'm not gonna read the source drivel, but on point 10 I believe one of the bike lane cases in Ontario was a charter case. It was basically the equivalent of a gov't trying to remove food safety regulations that keep poison out of food while giving no justification or reasoning for what it will achieve, acknowledging that people will die from this change, and adding a clause that those victims can't sue the gov't.

The ruling wasn't really about the gov'ts right to remove bike lanes, just that they need to make a remotely coherent argument to do it. And this is relevant as I saw a headline about a fresh Rick Bell collection of four word paragraphs on bike lane removal, which is probably going to require the NWC yet again.