Marshall Rothstein
- Thread starter red
- Start date
he is a judge on the Federal Court of Appeal!!!!red said:
http://www.cmac-cacm.ca/bios/rothsteinm_e.shtml
usually most judges end off their career on the Federal Court - surprising nominee by Harper!!!
In order to demonstate some measure of impatiality Harper selected from the short list that was left by Liberal minister when gov't fell.
This guy was quoted as saying he believed the courts should apply and interpret law NOT write law. If he follows thru with that it will be a step in the right direction. The previous liberal dynasty had a penchant for activist judges.
This guy was quoted as saying he believed the courts should apply and interpret law NOT write law. If he follows thru with that it will be a step in the right direction. The previous liberal dynasty had a penchant for activist judges.
LancsLad said:
the federal court judges are usually liberal in their way of thinking - but the current SCC is stacked with justices appointed by Chretien and Martin - I'm curious how this guy will render his decisions.
Good ones can. Apply the law and don't creat new ones from the bench, that's the idea anyway.red said:
At this stage computers can't apply interpretation of a set of circumstances against another set of similar yet not identical circumstances. Theoretically our "learned" judges provide that. There is a major difference between interpreting existing case law and wholesale construction of new social activist crap.red said:
lancslad its called policy!!!!!LancsLad said:
judges love to talk about policy in their decisons!!! - they like to see themselves as policymakers!!!!
There is no argument from me that case law is varied. My point in this thread is that the legislative branch of government, Cdn Parliament and US Congress are the originators of policy and legislation. The judicial branch is there to apply the law. They are not, or should not be, the originators of either policy or law.
well said Don - the facts of every case will differ - each case will have its own twist.DonQuixote said:
the legislation makes the law but most of the time the law is very broad so its left up to the judges to interept the law and the way they have gone about doing this is by creating certain tests (or certain elements) that need to be satisfied in order for the law to make sense.
the legal system in Canada and the U.S. is based on the common law approach (well except Quebec - which has the civil part) - but law is based on precedents - Stare Decisis
BTW Don, GO BLUE
So if DQ's example, where neither law nor precedents applied, occurred in your perfect world what would your perfect judge do? Chuck the poor beggar in the pokey while he sent a note to his MP to please hurry up and make a law that did apply? Or turn the evildoer loose while he sent… etc, etc?LancsLad said:
What they do, with the help of the Crowns, the cops, the Defence attornies and the entire legal establishment, is try to figure out if the legislators gave them something they can work with. In all the debates on the topic here and south of us, no one has provided an example of a judge or court making up law out of whole cloth and getting away with it.
Don't you think it's just a bit idealistic to imagine that the legislature's going to cover every little thing in their law—without running out of paper to print it on— that the real world is likely to turn up? If they actually settled on clearcut, explicitly stated general principles to enact, judges would have an easy task and little leeway to "make law" as you put it.
But those legislatures keep enacting half-baked, rushed-through hack jobs, more concerned with balancing this interest group and that, than with good drafting. Then, when the judges try to make sense of all the laws on the same matter, the legislators climb all over them saying, "That's not what we meant, you made that up." Well DuH!
And those legislators are often quie happy to have the judges decide what would lose them votes. Certainly, they have all the power they need to 'correct' the judges' 'misinterpretations'. But howling about them seems to be what they prefer.
I hardly live in an idealistic world. And since I'm not french I don't believe there should be a law covering every facet of life. We seem to be arguing over the way we perceive the " interpretation" asapect of a judges role to operate. I have not nor will not suggest there should be a strict code covering everything. That is impossible to do, the Euroweenies keep trying but can't be done. Thus our rules are broadly based and therefore need interpretation.
There is a major difference between interpreting something as vague as a murder intent or not for premeditaion and the type of thing our jackass supreme court did with the Merv Lavigne decision. That is what I am talking about. we may be closer than you think.
There is a major difference between interpreting something as vague as a murder intent or not for premeditaion and the type of thing our jackass supreme court did with the Merv Lavigne decision. That is what I am talking about. we may be closer than you think.
Lavigne
Many years back he was fired from his job at the unions behest when he continued to teach to his students during a strike. Was a very long and expensive court battle with all the major unions involved. The NCC took up Lavignes case based on personal freedoms... Finally at the Supremes level they used the exemption clauses of the so called charter that the T -word brought in to squash Lavigne an cripple the NCC by making them pay millions in legal fees for the unions. The decision basically stated that any rights Lavigne had as an individual who may choose to continue teaching were less than and were superceded by the " greater good" of the union. In order to ensure the success of the union action people like Lavigne who because of Rand had to be in the union , had to pay dues etc couldn't continue to teach.
Admittedly this is a very short synopsis and I am no lawyer( thankfully) but that was the gist of it. The supremes essentially said while most people may agree with you the positions of unions in Canada would be jeopardized if too many people exercised private initiative.
That is one of the reasons why I constantly remind people that in Canada we have a legal system and not a justice system.
If I was one of these computer literate link pros I could probably direct you to the supremes archieves.
red said:
Many years back he was fired from his job at the unions behest when he continued to teach to his students during a strike. Was a very long and expensive court battle with all the major unions involved. The NCC took up Lavignes case based on personal freedoms... Finally at the Supremes level they used the exemption clauses of the so called charter that the T -word brought in to squash Lavigne an cripple the NCC by making them pay millions in legal fees for the unions. The decision basically stated that any rights Lavigne had as an individual who may choose to continue teaching were less than and were superceded by the " greater good" of the union. In order to ensure the success of the union action people like Lavigne who because of Rand had to be in the union , had to pay dues etc couldn't continue to teach.
Admittedly this is a very short synopsis and I am no lawyer( thankfully) but that was the gist of it. The supremes essentially said while most people may agree with you the positions of unions in Canada would be jeopardized if too many people exercised private initiative.
That is one of the reasons why I constantly remind people that in Canada we have a legal system and not a justice system.
If I was one of these computer literate link pros I could probably direct you to the supremes archieves.
My quick reading fails to find anything about being fired; it all seems to be the old issue of whether you have to pay dues if your union adopts policies and performs acts you disagree with. Short answer/court answer: yes, as long as you enjoy the benefits of the union, you pay for them, warts and all. I guess running for union office would be your remedy.
Easy enough for legislators—and we have had a few since 1991—to pass a law to sort that out and relieve the Courts of their "law-making" in this regard.
But if the law-makers leave the mess they made—and it appears they did and continue to—for the courts to interpret, what is a poor judge to do?
Easy enough for legislators—and we have had a few since 1991—to pass a law to sort that out and relieve the Courts of their "law-making" in this regard.
But if the law-makers leave the mess they made—and it appears they did and continue to—for the courts to interpret, what is a poor judge to do?
Poor judges
God, the English language is so elegant in its simplicity.
If I could just get a judge to rule whether I meant poor or poor it would be all a lot clearer.
I don't know any poor judges but I know many poor judges.oldjones said:
God, the English language is so elegant in its simplicity.
If I could just get a judge to rule whether I meant poor or poor it would be all a lot clearer.
