Canada Abortion thread.

[crazy canuck]

Not really, especially given that the judges are nominated by the Government, usually from judges well within their party membership, with no oversight from Parliament, compared in the US in which SC judges must be interviewed and approved by the Congress first.

Can you name a SCC judge that was appointed because of party membership?  I am not even asking you to defend your notion that it usually happens.  I am asking you to name just one.

[Josephus]

Is Canada similar to the US in that people act like the major parties are black and white, but in reality are pretty much the same on the political spectrum... so no matter who gets elected, nothing really changes?  I'm asking honestly as I really don't know much about Canadian politics.

Pretty much, yes.

Nothing fundamental would change with the NDP in power who aren't really any  further left than the Liberals.

[crazy canuck]

Hey CC How many cases actually make it to the Supreme court percentage wise compared to the US. It seems to my barely paying attention brain that the Court here doesn't have to deal with as many big issue cases as they do down south, but maybe they aren't as highly publicized?

The SCC decides fundamental cases all the time.  If you scan the newspapers just this week you will see SCC decisions mentioned in several articles.  One issue they are currently deciding which will probably be of interest to you is whether the decision to close the Insite injection location is a Federal or Provincial matter and whether the Charter would prevent the Feds from closing it if it is a Federal decision.

[crazy canuck]

Nothing fundamental would change with the NDP in power who aren't really any  further left than the Liberals.

Point 1.  I knew you would say that;

Point 2.  You are going to have to convince people that is true to get the NDP into a position to form government.  If elected on that basis would the NDP really not be "any further left than the Liberals".  To answer that question in the affirmative would be to deny the whole history of the NDP which has been to position itself to the left.

[Drakken]

Can you name a SCC judge that was appointed because of party membership?  I am not even asking you to defend your notion that it usually happens.  I am asking you to name just one.

Never argued that the judges were nominated solely because they were party members, I'm not questioning their competency. Only that it plays a big role in the nomination process, not just of SC judges, but all judges. This is well-known.

Name me one SCC judge that was nominated despite his party affiliation to an opposing party. These are much rarer.

[Grey Fox]

Drakken, not all Judges are named by Jean Charest.

[Josephus]

Re: CC's post:

I actually only wrote that to tease you.  [it was actually a modified cut and paste.]

That said, I still believe nothing fundamental would change. But I guess what fundamental means might be different to you and me. I see "fundamental" changes as being revolutionary in nature. There would be some changes to the way corporations pay taxes, i imagine; and probably--hopefully-- some increased government spending on social issues,  but I can't see radical "socialist" changes. Certainly not in one term. Over time, under a longterm NDP gov't,  i see us going closer to European social democratic countries. Minimal changes, nothing major. We'll never have workers owning the means of production and all that marxist jagron.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

Hey CC How many cases actually make it to the Supreme court percentage wise compared to the US. It seems to my barely paying attention brain that the Court here doesn't have to deal with as many big issue cases as they do down south, but maybe they aren't as highly publicized?

The SCC decides fundamental cases all the time.  If you scan the newspapers just this week you will see SCC decisions mentioned in several articles.  One issue they are currently deciding which will probably be of interest to you is whether the decision to close the Insite injection location is a Federal or Provincial matter and whether the Charter would prevent the Feds from closing it if it is a Federal decision.

Oh yeah I forgot about that one. I don't think it is a federal issue. It's a local place that has been very successful in keeping people off junk and or dying. But I don't think the Fed cares about that at all, all they see is an opportunity to make hay from people's fears of crime. To me it's sad that that it's even an issue.

[viper37]

People in the boonies whose votes are worth much more than us city folk voters are afeared of Commie Orange

Most people are afraid of commie orange both in cities and in rural ridings. The NDP generally only do well federally in relatively lower income areas of cities and in rural areas that have a high percentage of unionized workers.

Quebec of course is a separate case.

high percentage of unionized workers - check.
relatively lower income - check.

[crazy canuck]

This is well-known.

If it is so well known perhaps you could tell me when it has happened.

Name me one SCC judge that was nominated despite his party affiliation to an opposing party. These are much rarer.

The false presupposition in your question is that party affiliation plays any role.  I cannot name a judge who was appointed despite party affiliation because party affiliation is not an issue.

[crazy canuck]

Hey CC How many cases actually make it to the Supreme court percentage wise compared to the US. It seems to my barely paying attention brain that the Court here doesn't have to deal with as many big issue cases as they do down south, but maybe they aren't as highly publicized?

The SCC decides fundamental cases all the time.  If you scan the newspapers just this week you will see SCC decisions mentioned in several articles.  One issue they are currently deciding which will probably be of interest to you is whether the decision to close the Insite injection location is a Federal or Provincial matter and whether the Charter would prevent the Feds from closing it if it is a Federal decision.

Oh yeah I forgot about that one. I don't think it is a federal issue. It's a local place that has been very successful in keeping people off junk and or dying. But I don't think the Fed cares about that at all, all they see is an opportunity to make hay from people's fears of crime. To me it's sad that that it's even an issue.

The arguments on both sides are more complex.  BTW not all the drug treatment side of the issue believe Insite is a good idea.

If you really want to learn about it you should read the BCCA decision.  The majority held that evidence that Insite reduces harm to the people using it essentially justifies its existance however the Minority reasons thought that was too narrow an analysis and that the question was related to harm to society as a whole not just reduction of harm to the junkies who used the clinic.  The Minority was concerned that allowing addicts to continue to service their addictions did not reduce harm at all but rather encouraged people generally to continue using drugs.

I think this decision is going to be a tough one for the SCC.

[MadImmortalMan]

Congrats to Canada for being fiscally responsible enough to actually be worrying about stuff like abortion right now. The rest of the developed world is too worried about keeping the roof from collapsing.

[Malthus]

CC is right on the nomination of SCC judges issue. In Canada, there is a long tradition of appointing serious jurists to the bench on a non-partisan basis, by all parties. The real issue is always stuff like representation from the regions.

It would create an uproar if a gov't appointed an openly party-partisan judge. It just isn't done.

[Drakken]

The false presupposition in your question is that party affiliation plays any role.  I cannot name a judge who was appointed despite party affiliation because party affiliation is not an issue.

Are you really trying to sell me that no SC judge has ever been nominated because either of his party affiliation or donation to a party? Really?

Like I said, I'm not questioning their competency, but arguing that it has never, ever, ever been a factor is asking too much.

[Neil]

American media has poisoned the ability of our young people to identify what's happening around them.