Friday, January 21, 2005

Rejecting Same-sex Marriage without the Notwithstanding Clause

Although Irwine Cotler may like to preach to us lesser mortals about how "this is a human right" and the "courts have rules" so it "must be done". They'll even trot out Peter Hogg a respected constitutional lawyer to say how the notwithstanding clause would need to be used to overturn those rulings. Although I can't say I find his opinion all that persausive considering he was acting as the government counsil, making him just a little biased.

However, presuming that the government bill is defeated in Parliament I have a rather simple 3 point plan to overturn the judges of the provincial appeal courts.

Firstly, state in an election "we shall appoint more Conservative judges".

Secondly, keep that promise by ammending the Supreme Court of Canada Act, altering the number of sitting Supreme Court Judges from 9 to 21, allowing us to appoint 12 judges which would constitute a majority. This would allow the SCC to not only hear more judgements but it would produce more favourable judgements for us.

Thirdly, ammend the Supreme Court of Canada Act to include a provision for special appeals that the federal government feels were neglected by the previous government, and require all supreme court judges to sit as one court for it.

Fourthly, gain a partisan judgement which works in our favour for a change overturning lower court decisions. Thereafter, laugh at the Liberals.

Some of you might wonder if this could be done, my response is why not? FDR threatened to do as much during the Great Depression and the mere threat was enough to ram his legislation through. Actually going through with it would have a devestating effect upon our "living tree".


At 10:27 p.m., Blogger John the Mad said...

Whoa pilgrim. I can't imagine the Canadian public supporting a stacking of the Supreme Court in this manner. I know the Grits have done it gradually through Prime Ministerial appointments, but this would be seen as a blatant attempt to undermine the rule of law for partisan political purposes. Politics is the art of the possible. Just wouldn't wash.

At 1:32 a.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh I'm well aware that the media would be howling and the Liberals enraged if it was ever done. The public would probably be against it too.

However, I think there is a growing current of discontent with the courts to the point they are rightly being viewed as partisan in any case. I think this will only firm up in time.

I think as a "practical political idea" this is useful more so as a threat than a suggestion. Given the outrage it would invoke, you would need a leader with ice in his viens and some salesmanship to make it fly even as a threat.

To a certain extent the idea is a self indulgent manner of saying "ah ha! so there Peter Hogg..thought there was only one option did you?" There is some petty vanity involved with attempting to disprove the fellow who writes your textbook


Post a Comment

<< Home

Blogroll Me!
Seo Blog - free blog hosting! Publish your blog for free! Blogarama - The Blog Directory Blogwise - blog directory Blog Search Engine Listed on BlogsCanada
Search Popdex:
Listed in LS Blogs