Friday, January 20, 2006

Liberal appointments and Stephen Harper

Could it be that when Stephen Harper vowed he wouldn't use the notwithstanding clause to 'force' through the traditional definition of marriage is because he knew, that like the attempt to pass an abortion law in the 90s, it would be stalled by the Senate.

Could it be that Stephen Harper mentioned that the senior levels of the civil service are composed of Liberal appointees as one of the 'checks and balances' he referred to was to assure this senior level of bureaucracy that he had no plans to universally and swiftly fire them the way that the Liberals fired Conservative appointees when they swept in to power in 1993.

Could it be that when Stephen Harper suggested that the judiciary was dominated by Liberal appointees, he knew that there was only one vacancy in the nine judge court, and he was assuring both the NDP and the Bloc -- both of which favour an overhaul of the vetting process, that he intends to follow through with the ideas that the three parties put forward (which were rejected by the Liberals) and will not appoint judges based on their political world view but on their interpretation of the law.

No one is saying they want an American-style inquisition type process of determining the credibility of judges, but all three opposition parties agreed on needed changes.

Canadians would do well to remember that even with a majority government, there will be constraints on Conservatives. There is no such mechanism in place to keep Liberals in check should weak-kneed people decide to maintain the status quo.

canadianna

9 comments:

Gabby in QC said...

My vote for a Conservative government has already been cast. However, I fear that the question of Liberal appointments may have cost Mr. Harper a majority. Whatever kind of government we wake up to on Jan. 24, bloggers should embark on an even stronger campaign to unmask Mr. Martin for the liar that he is. He is warning Canadians that should Mr. Harper win, he's going to stack the Supreme Court with social conservatives. What he neglects to tell Canadians is that after Judge Major steps down in Feb. 2006, the next appointment comes up only in 2013. Or is Mr. Martin sending his usual mixed message, that he expects Mr. Harper to be Prime Minister from now until then?

TrustOnlyMulder said...

Your last two posts are very timely.

I did some math on our Supreme Court.

5 born in quebec,
2 born in ontario
1 born in alberta
1 born in germany (yes in europe)

You can also break them down this way.

2 appointed by Mulroney (PC)
5 appointed by Chretien (Lib)
2 appointed by Martin (Lib)

By age, Harper would have to run the show about 20 to 25 years before the scale could be tipped to a 5 Conservative/4 Liberal slant in our government. Plenty of time for us to correct the situation if we are wrong supporting Harper.

But a Martin government almost guarantees an 8-1 slant because our oldest Justice is turning 75 this year and he was appointed by Mulroney. This really screws up the value system our citizen's want.

Being that close to the precipice of a 9-0 Supreme Court appointment ratio might rip this country apart on values alone.

I think a 5/4 slant for any party is what is best for we the people to have the best control of our nation over the long haul.

Only one party can address this judicial imbalance.

Conor Lloyd said...

It's just another attempt at pathetic fear mongering on behalf of the Liberals...can you imagine if the not-withstanding clause was removed like Paul martin wants to...what thell would happen then.

Harper wants to keep the checks and balances in-line

Anonymous said...

Hi all,

I have heard a lot of spin on Mr. Harper's comments, but I have not seen the actual comments or the context in which those comments were made. Does any one have a link to place where I can read those comments.

I do not want anyone's opinion as to what he meant and why that is incorrect/correct. I want to read the comments myself and decide for myself.

Can anyone help...

Canadi-anna said...

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/news/shownews.jsp?content=n011839A

I don't agree with some of the commentary in this piece, but it gives his quotes.

Sara said...

please call David Walmsley 416-367-2000 x 8710 at the Toronto Star and request nicely that we get a equal opportunity to stand up for all parents. Martha Friendly has put in an article of about 1200 words in describing a Liberal style of daycare. She only views on side of it. We are asking for equality for all parents!


Please advise David Walmsley 416-367-2000 x 8710 (nicely) that we would like an equal opportunity to speak. The National daycare is only shown and the other parents are ignored...


sorry about posting off topic but I need help...

Anonymous said...

Sara...Thanks for the info. we read the TO Sun...
I was a stay at home mom for 15 years. I have been wanting to comment on your site(not a blogger yet) so thanks to Canadianna I finally get to connect with you(CA...do we owe you rent? :) ) I called the Star a few minutes ago. They will be doing an article on the other points 'soon'
Me: "before the election?"
Star: "uhh...not sure"
Great blogging!!VF

Sara said...

Thank you, anonymous. You can email me at sara@landriault.com anytime!!!

and yes, thank you Canadianna... we must soon take the time to get to know each other after the election...

Sara said...

Also, I wanted to tell you any response to me is great.
I really do feel alone sometimes, it is very hard to do this. So I take deep breaths and look at my kids with tears in my eyes. They are always good tears though!
So please email or blog me how you feel, I'd love to read it...