If there is hope for liberal judicial activists, there is hope for anyone, even RT, who really isn't here because he said he was finished blogging. Next post RT will tell us really what he said, and we were too stupid ,in his humble opinion,to interpret what he really said. Anon #31
Anon #31 -- Yes, I should probably just go away. After all, that’s the objective here, isn’t it? To drown out the opposition and make them disappear. To say anything you want, not have it challenged and ignore their questions with dismissive remarks. Joanne does seem to be going out of her way to be provocative of late. SSM is undermining traditional marriage, secularists want to kill prayer in civic forums, natives are above the law, the Liberals are hypocrites, the police are robbing us of morbid entertainment, Dion is French, and Muslims are massing at the gates… This is part of what got me down so much, but it’s also part of what infuriates me and keeps me engaged. This “culture war” idea is kind of goofy, but when you can’t even be bothered to defend the notion from a conceptual standpoint and it’s clearly demonstrated that your own lies are fairly self-evident, then it all becomes a bit silly and pointless.
JJ -- Yes, you do drive me crazy. Not in a good way. But in a blood pressure elevating way. You don’t take your critics seriously and I believe you to be intellectually dishonest and/or lazy. Why not address the question I asked in the first place?
Perhaps somewhere on your “journey” you can reconcile how liberal “judicial activists” can arrive at a sane conclusion from the bench. Or does that only occur when it pleases your sensibilities? Or have I caught you out in yet another lie?
I obviously can't speak for others, but it certainly wouldn't be my objective for you to go away. You bring a perspective to issues that is needed and helpful IMHO. Any time a person's viewpoint cannot withstand honest scrutiny, it is not a viewpoint worth having. You, and others, certainly help me to clarify my thinking.
If I may try to answer the question in your first comment: if I wanted to be cynical (and overly ideological - to the point of unfairness), I suppose it could be that the SCC is reacting to the government's intention to include some representatives from law enforcement (along with those from other areas of the justice system) that give some input as to suitable candidates for the judiciary.
Actually, I suspect the so-called sanity was there all along. The judges of the SCC, and other courts, have generally become activists because we, as a country, have asked them to be activists, because of our laziness about addressing important issues. It seems that SCC rulings have this in common with weather forecasts - we remember when when they get it wrong, from our individual perspectives, but forget when, again from our individual perspectives, they get it right. It's just part of human nature for us react this way.
Brian -- A thoughtful and well-considered post. Thank you for contributing some much needed sanity and sober reflection to this discussion. I like the analogy to the weather forecasts. Good one! Sometimes the law can indeed be an ass, but that’s far from the case most of the time. (Which was kind of my point in the first place…)
11 comments:
Hang on a tic, aren’t they all nefariously liberal “judicial activists”? Where did this sudden bout of sanity come from?
Red, don't you wish you knew how to quit me?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA................hahahahahahahahahahah...........
OK got that out of my system!
And No Coffee on keyboard either !!!
;)
Yes, I should know better. Care to answer the question?
If there is hope for liberal judicial activists, there is hope for anyone, even RT, who really isn't here because he said he was finished blogging. Next post RT will tell us really what he said, and we were too stupid ,in his humble opinion,to interpret what he really said.
Anon #31
Anon #31 -- Yes, I should probably just go away. After all, that’s the objective here, isn’t it? To drown out the opposition and make them disappear. To say anything you want, not have it challenged and ignore their questions with dismissive remarks. Joanne does seem to be going out of her way to be provocative of late. SSM is undermining traditional marriage, secularists want to kill prayer in civic forums, natives are above the law, the Liberals are hypocrites, the police are robbing us of morbid entertainment, Dion is French, and Muslims are massing at the gates… This is part of what got me down so much, but it’s also part of what infuriates me and keeps me engaged. This “culture war” idea is kind of goofy, but when you can’t even be bothered to defend the notion from a conceptual standpoint and it’s clearly demonstrated that your own lies are fairly self-evident, then it all becomes a bit silly and pointless.
This is part of what got me down so much, but it’s also part of what infuriates me and keeps me engaged.
Admit it. I drive you crazy.
PGP - Glad I didn't ruin another keyboard. Whew!
JJ -- Yes, you do drive me crazy. Not in a good way. But in a blood pressure elevating way. You don’t take your critics seriously and I believe you to be intellectually dishonest and/or lazy. Why not address the question I asked in the first place?
Perhaps somewhere on your “journey” you can reconcile how liberal “judicial activists” can arrive at a sane conclusion from the bench. Or does that only occur when it pleases your sensibilities? Or have I caught you out in yet another lie?
To red tory -
I obviously can't speak for others, but it certainly wouldn't be my objective for you to go away. You bring a perspective to issues that is needed and helpful IMHO. Any time a person's viewpoint cannot withstand honest scrutiny, it is not a viewpoint worth having. You, and others, certainly help me to clarify my thinking.
If I may try to answer the question in your first comment: if I wanted to be cynical (and overly ideological - to the point of unfairness), I suppose it could be that the SCC is reacting to the government's intention to include some representatives from law enforcement (along with those from other areas of the justice system) that give some input as to suitable candidates for the judiciary.
Actually, I suspect the so-called sanity was there all along. The judges of the SCC, and other courts, have generally become activists because we, as a country, have asked them to be activists, because of our laziness about addressing important issues. It seems that SCC rulings have this in common with weather forecasts - we remember when when they get it wrong, from our individual perspectives, but forget when, again from our individual perspectives, they get it right. It's just part of human nature for us react this way.
Brian -- A thoughtful and well-considered post. Thank you for contributing some much needed sanity and sober reflection to this discussion. I like the analogy to the weather forecasts. Good one! Sometimes the law can indeed be an ass, but that’s far from the case most of the time. (Which was kind of my point in the first place…)
Post a Comment