Given how super-saturated the Supreme Court is with leftist activist judges, it's not surprising they want to take up the only legislative control to their power.
Everything in our system of control is another reason for Albertans to vote for separation from the corrupted Canadian system of government and law! Canada is corrupted and cannot be fixed!!!
They're all appointed by the liberals. It's literally insane to me how people think Trump has unchecked power with the senate and media against him while carney has complete control of a closed loop system. The daily moral inversion from the voters ans narrative managers is why populism is exploding accross the globe
I wonder is there a case to be made if only 7 provinces with a total of 50% of the population can fundamentally change the constitution, would that not lend some argument that a separatist vote in Quebec or Alberta and the constitution requirements created under the last Quebec referendum could or should be changed to follow this same logic verse the 10 provinces and federal government?
If the supreme court were to do this the effected governments should just ignore their order. It's about time someone stood up to these unelected morons. Let the 9 justices or however many were in the majority try and enforce the order themselves. They will see how powerless they are. The only power the supreme court has come from the citizens respecting their decisions.
Agree with the professor..a 3rd or new process needs to be put in place.. it came to mind as i listened ..
( I did think of our charter..it states we have freedoms if rights to the point of not interferring with the rights of others.
That happens all the time.. )
allow the 2 processess we have in pkace now, to happen.. if they agree so be it..if not a 3rd process..a trial of sorts of professionsls ..it works for trials.
12 men and women this time.. make a decision. No decision by this trial do again with 12 new people... JMO..
People need stability.. it worked before. Twisting the laws and rights to suit a particular problem. Is a problem.
I will only repeat my comment once more. The LAW is an a-s and it needs to be continually looked at and changed, preferably as often as it is deemed necessary. Does it happen or will it happen-I think not. We all must remember that lawyers, judges, politicians are all HUMANS and essentially flawed. The Supreme court is no different. I rest my case. Comments, please.
Sandra, we are indeed fallen. We are imperfect. Conservatism seeks to make order of the chaos.
How do we organize society? We create a governing system -based on a collection of beliefs-, the establishment of laws, and a process by which these laws are applied, interpreted, analyzed, and changed as required.
At one time, the Supreme Court was a body to review Federal/Provincial spheres of influence. Legislative assemblies containing elected officials made laws. If folks disagreed, new legislators could be elected, and the laws changed. That describes the Primacy of Parliament.
We have availed to the unelected Supreme Court the power to negate the wishes of the people, expressed through their elected representatives. Is that a prudent decision? What if we change our minds? How do we retrieve that power?
Section 33 AKA the Notwithstanding Clause, was an attempt to reset the balance, or, perhaps, to limit the damage of a wayward Federal Government and an ideologically captured Supreme Court.
Canada offered a third way; a democratic, parliamentary system of government with a constitutional monarchy that represented the best of Western Civilization, including a fealty to a Goodness greater than even order and the common good.
As we continue to lower our collective standards to match the decline in responsible, accountable governance, we should be little surprised at the resulting diminishment of our wonderful Canadian heritage and traditions, and the derivative aspects that made them possible and valuable.
We are all deconstructionists now; in a world of post-modernism, atheism, forced secularization and apathy, who needs values anyway?
So should the notwithstanding clause be invoked to overturn the supreme court ruling if it agrees with the petitioner?
Last one out turn the lights off.
Given how super-saturated the Supreme Court is with leftist activist judges, it's not surprising they want to take up the only legislative control to their power.
Everything in our system of control is another reason for Albertans to vote for separation from the corrupted Canadian system of government and law! Canada is corrupted and cannot be fixed!!!
I’m scared
Four judges can decide for 42 million people? How does that work for you? What happened to our democracy? You know, voting for your government thing?
They're all appointed by the liberals. It's literally insane to me how people think Trump has unchecked power with the senate and media against him while carney has complete control of a closed loop system. The daily moral inversion from the voters ans narrative managers is why populism is exploding accross the globe
Boy, do I ever wish Bruce Pardy was PM.
I wonder is there a case to be made if only 7 provinces with a total of 50% of the population can fundamentally change the constitution, would that not lend some argument that a separatist vote in Quebec or Alberta and the constitution requirements created under the last Quebec referendum could or should be changed to follow this same logic verse the 10 provinces and federal government?
I think Canada will be truly lost if this clause is touched. I am deeply frightened for my country.
If the supreme court were to do this the effected governments should just ignore their order. It's about time someone stood up to these unelected morons. Let the 9 justices or however many were in the majority try and enforce the order themselves. They will see how powerless they are. The only power the supreme court has come from the citizens respecting their decisions.
Oh well was nice knowing you Liberal eastern Canada! Have a nice life! Dont forget to write! 😂
Agree with the professor..a 3rd or new process needs to be put in place.. it came to mind as i listened ..
( I did think of our charter..it states we have freedoms if rights to the point of not interferring with the rights of others.
That happens all the time.. )
allow the 2 processess we have in pkace now, to happen.. if they agree so be it..if not a 3rd process..a trial of sorts of professionsls ..it works for trials.
12 men and women this time.. make a decision. No decision by this trial do again with 12 new people... JMO..
People need stability.. it worked before. Twisting the laws and rights to suit a particular problem. Is a problem.
Good discussion..
I will only repeat my comment once more. The LAW is an a-s and it needs to be continually looked at and changed, preferably as often as it is deemed necessary. Does it happen or will it happen-I think not. We all must remember that lawyers, judges, politicians are all HUMANS and essentially flawed. The Supreme court is no different. I rest my case. Comments, please.
Just ANOTHER fucking reason to leave this shit hole of CHINADA
The provinces may have to amend the constitution to correct these lunatics.
Sandra, we are indeed fallen. We are imperfect. Conservatism seeks to make order of the chaos.
How do we organize society? We create a governing system -based on a collection of beliefs-, the establishment of laws, and a process by which these laws are applied, interpreted, analyzed, and changed as required.
At one time, the Supreme Court was a body to review Federal/Provincial spheres of influence. Legislative assemblies containing elected officials made laws. If folks disagreed, new legislators could be elected, and the laws changed. That describes the Primacy of Parliament.
We have availed to the unelected Supreme Court the power to negate the wishes of the people, expressed through their elected representatives. Is that a prudent decision? What if we change our minds? How do we retrieve that power?
Section 33 AKA the Notwithstanding Clause, was an attempt to reset the balance, or, perhaps, to limit the damage of a wayward Federal Government and an ideologically captured Supreme Court.
Canada offered a third way; a democratic, parliamentary system of government with a constitutional monarchy that represented the best of Western Civilization, including a fealty to a Goodness greater than even order and the common good.
As we continue to lower our collective standards to match the decline in responsible, accountable governance, we should be little surprised at the resulting diminishment of our wonderful Canadian heritage and traditions, and the derivative aspects that made them possible and valuable.
We are all deconstructionists now; in a world of post-modernism, atheism, forced secularization and apathy, who needs values anyway?