Expect Harper gets to appoint judges to the supreme court which can always strike down any ruling.
I had my hopes up but not too hopeful right now
Prostitution Appeal to Be Heard Monday
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Expect Harper gets to appoint judges to the supreme court which can always strike down any ruling.
I had my hopes up but not too hopeful right now
There is an appointment or is it two which are coming up, but I doubt until after this decision.
Even so it still will not change the balance of the Court.
The Notwithstanding clause was put in our constitution to placate Quebec. It basically gives the government of the day the ability to act "unconstitutionally". When it was introduced, there was a great deal of division in the country over it. Afterall, what's the point of having a constitution if the government is given a mechanism through which it can sidestep the constitution. The political backlash would come simply from using it on such a trivial issue.
Harper had the right to go to the GG and ask that parliament be prorogued. What's interesting though is that when the house came back, the opposition parties abandoned the idea. There were many opportunities in which they could have tried to form a coalition again. Why didn't they? Could it be because they felt the backlash from the Canadian people and then lost their nerve? Because even though they legally have the right to form a coalition government, they knew that the Canadian people would consider it illegitimate and a power grab. But this is the typical Liberal sense of entitlement thinking. They actually believe that for some reason they are entitled to power and if another party wins, well it must be a mistake and the Canadian people have to be saved from themselves.
Good point Joe. If Harper really wants to deal with prostitution, this would be the way to do it rather than using the Notwithstanding clause of the constitution. But I think there is a timing issue here. The Harper appointed judges may not be put in place until after this issue is resolved, one way or the other.
Because Harper abandoned the piece of legislation that triggered it and was able to successfully attack the idea in the press. Also Stephan Dion did a cartoon like job of selling and justifying what he wanted to do by having some jerkoff film it on cellphone.. unreal really. I think the idea could have been sold successfully, but not by the morons that tried it. Harper is definitely 100x more polished then his rivals. It amazes me the Lib cannot find a single telegenic leader among the entire party.
There were other pieces of legislation that they could have used to trigger it, but they didn't. The reason they couldn't sell it is because it was a ridiculous idea and most Canadians saw it for what it was.. a power grab at any price... even if it meant aligning with the Bloc.
Judges would never do that for a leader. SC judges cannot be fired, they would only do things that are legally defensible. They can lean to the left or right but it is difficult for them to do a complete 180 on any issue.
I wouldn't call the legalization of prostitution a "trivial issue" but I do agree that there would be a huge backlash if Harper's government tried to use the Notwithstanding Clause. Not worth the political fallout over such a divisive issue.
And, as I mentioned above, unless you mean quite some time into the future, the ballance of the Court will not change over the next four or five years.
Well the decision comes up likely in a few months and THEN the gov can appeal it again, maybe to another court just below the Canada Supreme court.
So it might be 2 to 4 years from now, before the case could go to the supreme court and likely Harper will get to pick another judge to his liking. They--the gov might drag it out for longer, Harper is in now for a long fucken time.
It would help if this case goes our way, just in terms in how the police might view it but the law might never ever change I'm afraid
Well its cool that the Canadian Civil liberties Association is the one on our side, hopefully they are well funded and have good lawyers, they are going to need all the help we can get. Taking on both the federal and provincal governments is a tall order
I never said it was a waste of time. I said the winning or losing of any argument in this thread would be decided elsewhere. If you believe that means a discussion is a waste of time, then I suggest you drink 100 gallons of the beverage you offered me.
I doubt that. If the courts overturn it, the C's absolutely will legislate. Plainly they will try and enact something that is constitutional--I can guarantee you they will have a whole team of lawyers poring over the decision and coming up with the strongest possible legislation that would pass constitutional muster.
Why are we talking about the "notwithstanding clause" here at all? The courts have ruled that the current laws are unconstitutional for a very specific reason. I haven't seen any convincing claim that some other legal regime would be unconstitutional. For example, criminalizing buying but not selling.
