Question of the day:

[electricland]

Is the Fraser Institute on crack? More than usual, I mean.

The Fraser Institute also proposes another solution to limiting judicial activism: holding referenda on contentious judgments to allow people to choose between the court ruling, the original law, or some middle ground.

Which is the greater threat to democracy: judicial activism or endless hijacked referenda? You be the judge!

Did they learn nothing from the whole Stockwell/Doris Day fiasco? Oh wait, that would presuppose that they have a sense of humour. Never mind.

(Note to non-Canadians: the Fraser Institute is normally described as "a conservative think tank". Basically, they're highly successful media whores.)

Comments

[life-on-queen.livejournal.com]

Yes they're on crack. And beware today's print edition of the Nat'l Post--Rebecca Feckless is extolling the joys of impending motherhood with Kate Hudson.

If those are the only exemplars we get to choose from, I'm having myself sterilized.

Geh, my skin crawls just imagining that column.

[electricland.livejournal.com]

DON'T READ THE POST!

Geez, I've told you over and over...

and raithen was quoting from a wedding column in the online edition today too. AAAAAAAGH.

[thebitterguy]

I read the post when Seth is in it, or when I want to hate my country.

[mrs-cake.livejournal.com]

limiting judicial activism: holding referenda on contentious judgments to allow people to choose between the court ruling, the original law, or some middle ground

Never has anything passed so far over my head. I wonder if that translation exam is such a good idea when I know they'll be testing for political awareness and cultural insight....

[electricland.livejournal.com]

well, I didn't help by quoting from halfway down the article.

Main thrust is: Supreme Court judges appointed by Prime Minister* blah blah, undemocratic blah blah, judges getting all crazy-like with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and handing down judgments about gay marriage and stuff blah blah, what they're doing is effectively constitutional change blah blah, Canadians should be able to nominate judges for election, having candidates interviewed by parliamentary committee** doesn't go far enough blah blah.

In short, they want to make us ordinary citizens spend all our time nominating/voting on judges to the Supreme Court and/or second-guessing their judgements once they get there. What do I pay taxes for again? Oh right, they're against those too.

I exaggerate a tad.

Anyway, don't worry about it, it's all very dull Canadian internal political wrangling and I strongly doubt it's going to show up on your translation exam. But now you can wow them for extra credit! er, if you leave out the blah blah bits.

That reminds me, do you know what was once voted the most boring headline in the world?

"Worthwhile Canadian Initiative".

*who is a Liberal and a Quebecker, and hence the mortal enemy of the conservative, Western Fraser Institute

**this is a proposed change to the judicial appointment process currently in the works

[mrs-cake.livejournal.com]

Aaaah y---es. Okay, gotcha. Thanks for the lesson, Miss. :D It'll come in handy for the extra credit, I'm sure.

Question from a politically retarded wench:So...it's NOT a good idea to have the Supreme Court judges appointed by The People instead of the P.M.? Because it takes too much time? Or am I missing sunnink here?

[electricland.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm all for having Parliament involved in the process. I think it should be involved, in fact, which they're currently trying to do. The PM's office has way too much power concentrated in it at present. But speaking for myself, I know NOTHING about what makes a good judge, I've never heard of most of the appointees (even the ones that are hailed as good choices -- except for Louise Arbour) and I don't see what makes me peculiarly qualified to pick judges. I think I'd be lousy at it. Plus, would you then get judges campaigning for office? I don't like the idea of that at all. I'd like to see a more formal process for nominating and assessing judges before appointing them, but I don't want to see judges beholden to a particular faction for their appointments. (Hence, more parliamentary oversight good.)

My general view on these things is "Look, I vote in general elections so I'll have an MP to worry about these things. That's their job. Bugger off and get on with it. If I don't like what my MP is doing, I'll let her know." It's not a perfect system, but what is?