Is Harper incapable of making any non-partisan appointments?

[userz]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...-reason-to-reject-marc-nadon/article16330966/

Of Marc Nadon's judgements that have been appealed to the SCC: None of his work on that court caught anybody’s imagination. One analysis of his judgments revealed that of 12 cases he wrote for the majority that were appealed to the Supreme Court, nine were overturned – in one case, involving natural resource extractive industries, by a 9-0 majority.

I recall Andromache Karakatsanis wasn't exactly considered the creme de la creme in legal circles. She did however happen to be a senior provincial civil servant during the Mike Harris era which I am sure had absolutely no bearing on Harper's choice.

 

[shack]

He's a confirmed control freak, so the answer is a clear YES.

 

[dirk076]

Oh for fucks sake here we go again. Why don't you research Chretien's appointments to the Court and the Senate? It was even more partisan. Guess what? That's how it works.

 

[oldjones]

Oh for fucks sake here we go again. Why don't you research Chretien's appointments to the Court and the Senate? It was even more partisan. Guess what? That's how it works.

And who appointed Hugh Segal to the Senate?

 

[dirk076]

Chretien made 75 appointments to the Senate. 72 were Liberal, 3 opposition. Pretty partisan by any standard.

 

[basketcase]

Not a fan of Harper but is anyone surprised that political appointments are partisan?

 

[dirk076]

Not a fan of Harper but is anyone surprised that political appointments are partisan?

No shit eh? These threads are hilarious.

 

[elmo]

No shit eh? These threads are hilarious.

seriously...

 

[Butler1000]

All I see is a big cupboard filled with a lot of blacked pots and kettles.......

 

[groggy]

Chretien made 75 appointments to the Senate. 72 were Liberal, 3 opposition. Pretty partisan by any standard.

True, but he didn't put liberal fundraisers into the senate.
Harper has taken it to the extreme.

 

[blackrock13]

Chretien made 75 appointments to the Senate. 72 were Liberal, 3 opposition. Pretty partisan by any standard.

Pretty much isn't the same. Harper doesn't even try to hide his arrogance.

 

[elmo]

Pretty much isn't the same. Harper doesn't even try to hide his arrogance.

And Cretien did? Seriously? These clowns all look the same when they've been in power too long.

 

[blackrock13]

And Cretien did? Seriously? These clowns all look the same when they've been in power too long.

There is a different and Canadians usually see that after a while and that's why the Liberals have been the government more then the Conservatives.

 

[elmo]

There is a different and Canadians usually see that after a while and that's why the Liberals have been the government more then the Conservatives.

If the libs are so good and the cons so bad, we never would have a con government. Give your head a shake, they're all the same.

 

[userz]

Oh for fucks sake here we go again. Why don't you research Chretien's appointments to the Court and the Senate? It was even more partisan. Guess what? That's how it works.

What partisan appointments did Chretien make to SCC, or any other court? At least Chretien never had a semi-retired judge appointed to the SCC who the Supreme Court had to weigh in on whether or not the individual is entitled to sit in the first place. Appointing Senators who don't live in the province they will supposedly represent and naming judges that results in a court challenge isn't something Chretien ever did. Ontario too is joining the fray arguing changes to the composition of the SCC require a constitutional amendment and provincial consent.

And the qualifications of a justice of the Supreme Court are a helluva lot more important than those of any senator.

 

[blackrock13]

If the libs are so good and the cons so bad, we never would have a con government. Give your head a shake, they're all the same.

Who saying the Liberals are so good? All they have to be is just better than the Conservative most of the time, not hard to do. Maybe too many head shakes is one of your problems, not one of mine.

 

[nervous]

The SCC wants to 'remain' non-partisan...That is a load of BS. Chretien and Martin appointed judges they knew would rule in their way. They did it to avoid having to pass politically dangerous legislation...get over it, Canada is run like a third world country, regardless of who is in power...Would you like a new hospital for the bi-election, or will a moved power plant do?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...-reason-to-reject-marc-nadon/article16330966/

Of Marc Nadon's judgements that have been appealed to the SCC: None of his work on that court caught anybody’s imagination. One analysis of his judgments revealed that of 12 cases he wrote for the majority that were appealed to the Supreme Court, nine were overturned – in one case, involving natural resource extractive industries, by a 9-0 majority.

I recall Andromache Karakatsanis wasn't exactly considered the creme de la creme in legal circles. She did however happen to be a senior provincial civil servant during the Mike Harris era which I am sure had absolutely no bearing on Harper's choice.

 

[Aardvark154]

Oh pleeeeze. Name me a head of Government who doesn't make partisan appointments.

 

[Aardvark154]

The SCC wants to 'remain' non-partisan...That is a load of BS. Chretien and Martin appointed judges they knew would rule in their way - - - Canada is run like a third world country

You don't believe that Presidents of the United States and Governors of States don't do the same thing?

Further, how a head of government believes a judge they nominate will rule and how they do rule can be very, very different things - look at President Eisenhower and Chief Justice Warren!

 

[userz]

You don't believe that Presidents of the United States and Governors of States don't do the same thing?

Further, how a head of government believes a judge they nominate will rule and how they do rule can be very, very different things - look at President Eisenhower and Chief Justice Warren!

Unlike the US where you're from we don't have a tradition of appointing judges on political considerations. The SCC is seen as apolitical and isn't afraid of going against the wishes of the government of the day but Harper would like to change all of that. What kind of a lawyer are you anyway considering you support partisan chicanery?