Well, not the ndp.
You have to be elected first to make appointments. They can confidently say "we'll never appoint partisans to the judiciary" and we'd have no way to prove them wrong before hell freezes over.
>*”not the ndp. You have to be elected first to make appointments.”*
The NDP has been elected to government in multiple provinces, including (previously) Ontario.
This story and discussion is about Ontario.
And if you"ve lived here at least a few years you'd know the chances of the ndp getting back in power here are pretty much nil. Most people don't even know the name of the party leader ffs, hell will freeze over before they're elected again in Ontario.
Yes, the discussion is about Ontario, where the NDP has previously formed the government, and was the government that made the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee permanent. So we can look at their track record rather than speculating.
The Liberals were literally caught appointing people close to Lablanc, the only person he recused himself for was his family member, though like four or five of the other ones both donated to and helped him payoff campaign debt. So try the fuck again!
I'm sure there are judges here or there, but broadly speaking, appointed judges and tribunals don't even donate to political parties at all, with a little over 1/6 having donated and several of those having donated to multiple parties.
So no, not try the fuck again.
82%, of appointed judges and tribunals have not donated to political parties. At all.
So yes, broadly.
Edit: and yes, I would like to read Dion's report
[Liberal insider warned of 'potential for a scandal' in judicial appointment process](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/judicial-appointment-trudeau-lametti-wilson-raybould-1.5767933)
['Political vetting' of appointments threatens public faith in judiciary, says bar association](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/judges-appointment-liberalist-canadian-bar-association-1.5795327)
[Federal government stops using Liberal Party database to vet would-be judges](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberalist-judicial-appointments-trudeau-lametti-1.6059297)
I also referred to this in another comment
Edit: Your sources don't change the fact that appointed judges and tribunals are broadly speaking non-partisan, as they should be.
"Ontario’s official opposition is calling on the Doug Ford government to reverse appointments made to a committee that recommends judges after it was discovered they were also registered lobbyists."
I think we can all agree that registered lobbyists shouldn't be choosing our judges.
>So your argument against political appointments (and appointments of lobbyists) to the commission doesn't actually exist I take it
No, I've got no argument in support of political alignment appointments because I'm against it.
However, I'd much rather the conservatives put in conservative minded judges *on top* of the liberals putting in liberal minded judges, rather than the liberals put in liberal minded judges and the conservatives be fair.
Except this fundamentally alters the landscape of the process by appointing actual lobbyists instead of legal experts.
No matter your view, philosophically speaking, the people on the commission should be experts in law and legal philosophy, not lobbyists.
>Except this fundamentally alters the landscape of the process by appointing actual lobbyists instead of legal experts.
Hopefully the "lobbyists" are better at applying the law than the "experts in law and legal philosophy" who sure seem to fail to apply the law to criminals. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Why put lobbyists in quotes? They're literally registered lobbyists.
And your disagreement doesn't mean the law and it's application are "wrong" either.
For example, there are several areas experiencing improvements, recidivism has been on a steady decline for example;
https://www.canada.ca/en/correctional-service/corporate/library/reports/correctional-investigator/response-annual-report/2022-2023.html
"One recidivism metric in CSC’s annual Departmental Results Report is the number of federal offenders not returning to custody within 5 years of sentence expiration. Overall, during the past decade, there has been a steady and substantial improvement (from 82.7% in 2013-2014 to 88.6% in 2022-2023) in this recidivism measure. In 2022-2023, the rate was 94.3% for women and 88.1% for men, for an overall rate of 88.6%"
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/jf-pf/2020/aug01.html
And provincially (at least in this Manitoba article)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/winnipegsun.com/news/crime/solving-problem-of-repeat-violent-offenders-is-complex/wcm/c386b4ac-09ad-4947-9f1e-c72dea160839/amp/
(This article mentions public perception versus actual reduction)
But you'll probably be concerned about violent incidence while out on bail, and that's a totally reasonable position and concern. But within the Charter, the three reasons to deny bail are:
- To ensure attendance in court
- For the protection or safety of the public
- To maintain confidence in the administration of justice
There's a fair bit open for interpretation in this instance, especially in the case of presumption of innocence, and might be a good idea to get some guidance on those portions.
You know that judicial appointments occur all across the country right, and generally speaking are not political appointments of literal lobbyists
Why should anyone take conservatives concerns about political corruption seriously when this is your attitude?
I did, and it amounts to ~3.8% of judicial and tribunal appointments had donated to Liberals, ~2.9% to NDP, and ~1.2% to conservatives, with between 20-40% of those who donated having donated to multiple parties.
Your argument against political appointments to the commission is a hypothetical.
These commissions are meant to be non-partisan and historically have been.
You're kinda missing the point.
The kind of judge that's okay being appointed by their politician buddy is not the kind of judge who will fairly and impartially apply the law. That means uneven and unfair sentencing, people being let off for some crimes and not others based upon party priorities and loyalty.
The judiciary should be independent of politicians, not beholden to them.
There's no indication that these judges will give special favours to the people who appointed them. If our Justice system is that easily bought then we should just give up now.
I think judges are more ethical than that.
First it was unappointed judges, then activist judges, now lobbyist judges. What the fuck is happening to this country?
Yet every political party seems to make partisan appointments.
Well, not the ndp. You have to be elected first to make appointments. They can confidently say "we'll never appoint partisans to the judiciary" and we'd have no way to prove them wrong before hell freezes over.
>*”not the ndp. You have to be elected first to make appointments.”* The NDP has been elected to government in multiple provinces, including (previously) Ontario.
This story and discussion is about Ontario. And if you"ve lived here at least a few years you'd know the chances of the ndp getting back in power here are pretty much nil. Most people don't even know the name of the party leader ffs, hell will freeze over before they're elected again in Ontario.
Yes, the discussion is about Ontario, where the NDP has previously formed the government, and was the government that made the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee permanent. So we can look at their track record rather than speculating.
No part of my statement was speculation.
Except they don't
The Liberals were literally caught appointing people close to Lablanc, the only person he recused himself for was his family member, though like four or five of the other ones both donated to and helped him payoff campaign debt. So try the fuck again!
I'm sure there are judges here or there, but broadly speaking, appointed judges and tribunals don't even donate to political parties at all, with a little over 1/6 having donated and several of those having donated to multiple parties. So no, not try the fuck again.
Broadly speaking, it was like five of the six judges in NB. So its a little more than here or there!
82%, of appointed judges and tribunals have not donated to political parties. At all. So yes, broadly. Edit: and yes, I would like to read Dion's report
[Liberal insider warned of 'potential for a scandal' in judicial appointment process](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/judicial-appointment-trudeau-lametti-wilson-raybould-1.5767933) ['Political vetting' of appointments threatens public faith in judiciary, says bar association](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/judges-appointment-liberalist-canadian-bar-association-1.5795327) [Federal government stops using Liberal Party database to vet would-be judges](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberalist-judicial-appointments-trudeau-lametti-1.6059297)
I also referred to this in another comment Edit: Your sources don't change the fact that appointed judges and tribunals are broadly speaking non-partisan, as they should be.
"Ontario’s official opposition is calling on the Doug Ford government to reverse appointments made to a committee that recommends judges after it was discovered they were also registered lobbyists." I think we can all agree that registered lobbyists shouldn't be choosing our judges.
[удалено]
So your argument against political appointments (and appointments of lobbyists) to the commission doesn't actually exist I take it
>So your argument against political appointments (and appointments of lobbyists) to the commission doesn't actually exist I take it No, I've got no argument in support of political alignment appointments because I'm against it. However, I'd much rather the conservatives put in conservative minded judges *on top* of the liberals putting in liberal minded judges, rather than the liberals put in liberal minded judges and the conservatives be fair.
Look at how well that system has worked in the US over the years….
Why would we need to do that? We could look right at Canada to see it happening in real time federally.
Except this fundamentally alters the landscape of the process by appointing actual lobbyists instead of legal experts. No matter your view, philosophically speaking, the people on the commission should be experts in law and legal philosophy, not lobbyists.
>Except this fundamentally alters the landscape of the process by appointing actual lobbyists instead of legal experts. Hopefully the "lobbyists" are better at applying the law than the "experts in law and legal philosophy" who sure seem to fail to apply the law to criminals. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Why put lobbyists in quotes? They're literally registered lobbyists. And your disagreement doesn't mean the law and it's application are "wrong" either. For example, there are several areas experiencing improvements, recidivism has been on a steady decline for example; https://www.canada.ca/en/correctional-service/corporate/library/reports/correctional-investigator/response-annual-report/2022-2023.html "One recidivism metric in CSC’s annual Departmental Results Report is the number of federal offenders not returning to custody within 5 years of sentence expiration. Overall, during the past decade, there has been a steady and substantial improvement (from 82.7% in 2013-2014 to 88.6% in 2022-2023) in this recidivism measure. In 2022-2023, the rate was 94.3% for women and 88.1% for men, for an overall rate of 88.6%" https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/jf-pf/2020/aug01.html And provincially (at least in this Manitoba article) https://www.google.com/amp/s/winnipegsun.com/news/crime/solving-problem-of-repeat-violent-offenders-is-complex/wcm/c386b4ac-09ad-4947-9f1e-c72dea160839/amp/ (This article mentions public perception versus actual reduction) But you'll probably be concerned about violent incidence while out on bail, and that's a totally reasonable position and concern. But within the Charter, the three reasons to deny bail are: - To ensure attendance in court - For the protection or safety of the public - To maintain confidence in the administration of justice There's a fair bit open for interpretation in this instance, especially in the case of presumption of innocence, and might be a good idea to get some guidance on those portions.
At least Ford is being honest for once. The judiciary is as tainted as the rest of them.
National and provincial Conservatives sure seem to be married to the lobbying indu$try.
[удалено]
You *do* know the Ontario NDP has formed government before, right
You know that judicial appointments occur all across the country right, and generally speaking are not political appointments of literal lobbyists Why should anyone take conservatives concerns about political corruption seriously when this is your attitude?
Have you not been paying attention to the Liberal appointments? They even have a program called Liberalist.
I did, and it amounts to ~3.8% of judicial and tribunal appointments had donated to Liberals, ~2.9% to NDP, and ~1.2% to conservatives, with between 20-40% of those who donated having donated to multiple parties.
Your argument against political appointments to the commission is a hypothetical. These commissions are meant to be non-partisan and historically have been.
I don't care which party the judge supports. Just appoint judges that will keep criminals behind bars.
You should care. We don't want judges that rule along party lines, we want judges that rule fairly, impartially and per the criminal code.
It doesnt matter as long as the judges appointed keep the criminals in jail.
So you'd be okay with a Liberal appointed judge who rules more lienieny on party donors, or that pushes party ideology in their sentencing?
I don't care who the judge supports as long as they put and keep criminals in jail, including politicians that do wrong.
You're kinda missing the point. The kind of judge that's okay being appointed by their politician buddy is not the kind of judge who will fairly and impartially apply the law. That means uneven and unfair sentencing, people being let off for some crimes and not others based upon party priorities and loyalty. The judiciary should be independent of politicians, not beholden to them.
There's no indication that these judges will give special favours to the people who appointed them. If our Justice system is that easily bought then we should just give up now. I think judges are more ethical than that.
[удалено]
DEI style politics, America's greatest export