By that logic 6/9 current Canadian Supreme Court Justices couldn't rule on any federal legislation as 5 were appointed to the Supreme Court by Trudeau and the Cheif Justice, while appointed to the court by Harper, was elevated to Cheif Justice by Trudeau.
Now, in the US the system is setup that the Presidnet reccomends and the Senate interviews, debates and then appoints. Except, it's now a rubber stamp and very partisan where Canada the legal judiciary is relatively independent.
I was going to say the difference to me would be when it's within the way the system is designed to rule on legislation vs a criminal/civil court case.. Plus Trudeau doesn't create legislation by himself.
But it's still a good point and there are actions the PM could take where the Supreme Court would rule on the legality.
So yeah fair point.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I was going to say the difference to me would be when it's within the way the system is designed to rule on legislation vs a criminal/civil court case.. Plus Trudeau doesn't create legislation by himself.
But it's still a good point and there are actions the PM could take where the Supreme Court would rule on the legality.
So yeah fair point.
WTF?!
You've listened to an alternate point of view, considered and fairly acknowledged it, rather than blindly disagree, dig your heels in, and call me Hitler?
Is... is... is this your first day on the internet? Like, are you new here?
[Seriously though, it's not a perfect analogy, and the US is so screwed up right now that just because on the face it seems wrong, doesn't mean it is]
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
The Following User Says Thank You to Maritime Q-Scout For This Useful Post:
You've listened to an alternate point of view, considered and fairly acknowledged it, rather than blindly disagree, dig your heels in, and call me Hitler?
Is... is... is this your first day on the internet? Like, are you new here?
[Seriously though, it's not a perfect analogy, and the US is so screwed up right now that just because on the face it seems wrong, doesn't mean it is]
Aww, I know it's hard to deal with behavior that's out of the ordinary. Here, let me make you more comfortable.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
If we can't fall in love with replaceable bottom 6 players then the terrorists have won.
CNN has been given marching orders to become Fox Lite as of about 6 weeks ago, and they've dove in with both feet.
Is it really Fox lite? Prior to the change, I felt CNN was way too much slanted to Dems in their coverage, so less of that biased take, I'm all for, though to be fair, there hasn't been anything good to say about the GOP in the last number of years and I felt their criticisms of the right were warranted. They've never been supportive of progressives so will be interesting to see how they cover them going forward.
I follow thousands of Dems on Twitter and the anger, while it’s lessened a bit in the last two or three weeks, has been strong against CNN. They feel CNN coverage has taken a couple of big leaps to the right. I support the Dems but also feel that the second N stands for news and CNN personalities can have opinions but they have to be balanced with providing NEWS and not just pushing the Democrat point of view. Dems don’t seen to see that.
It's wild how much she seems to both sound like the right and sound like the left in the speeches I've seen from her. In this case she sounds both anti-colonial and anti-immigrant. I don't know if this is political strategy or if she is sincere and her ideas just bridge both ends of the political spectrum via shared anti-institutional values, at least when using North American standards. I would be interested to know how her ideas fit into the political landscape from the perspective of someone with a deep understanding of Italian politics.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
It's wild how much she seems to both sound like the right and sound like the left in the speeches I've seen from her. In this case she sounds both anti-colonial and anti-immigrant. I don't know if this is political strategy or if she is sincere and her ideas just bridge both ends of the political spectrum via shared anti-institutional values, at least when using North American standards. I would be interested to know how her ideas fit into the political landscape from the perspective of someone with a deep understanding of Italian politics.
I mean the anti-colonialism is anti-french colonialism which did not benefit italy. It's nationalist in nature
The Following User Says Thank You to Cappy For This Useful Post:
She's just calling Macron a hypocrite for calling out Italy's handling of migrants at sea when not taking any themselves. And then she adds on France raping African resources.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Is it 2016 again?
