Thursday, January 19, 2006

Even the Toronto Star admits Paul Martin is full of crap

Babble on.

Both Liberal shills and left-of-centre pundits expressed their shock and dismay that Stephen Harper would even suggest earlier this week that our current system of judicial appointments is politicized and that our judges might exhibit an ideological leaning that reflects the views of the party that appointed them.

While Stephen Harper has softened the tone of his remarks, Andrew Coyne has done a commendable job of backing up the assertion. But Coyne's predisposition to small-c conservatism is well-known, and so his support isn't particularly surprising.

What is surprising is that the Toronto Star has just publicly recognized our judiciary leans to the left:

In a near-concession that his Liberals face possible defeat, the prime minister said the country is closer than ever to having its courts become the focus of an ideological tug of war.

“This is no abstract issue; we have a vacancy to be filled on the Supreme Court bench,” Martin told a news conference.

“(The courts) stand between (the Conservatives) and the most socially conservative agenda that has ever been this close to forming a government. . . Never have we seen a major political party with such a conservative agenda as this one — an agenda really drawn from the extreme right in the United States.”
But a more conservative Supreme Court could be one way to enact such changes while elected politicians avoid the debate. It would be the exact opposite of socially liberal court appointments and rulings in the last 20 years that paved the way to today’s status quo on abortion and gay rights. (Babbler's emphasis)

So not only has Paul Martin admitted the vaunted changes to his appointment process leave the door wide open to partisan appointments, but his biggest media supporter has admitted that partisan appointments are exactly what has occurred over the past twenty years.

Keep talking Paul. Keep right on talking.

Babble off.

Update: More on this issue at Occam's Carbuncle, GenX at 40, and in comments at Calgary Grit.


At 8:16 p.m., Blogger Jason Cherniak said...

I don't think you understand. My point is to highlight the fact that Harper sees the courts as a political instrument. If he wants to overrule them, he should use the notwithstanding clause. He should not try to stack them with judges will ignore precedent.

At 8:32 p.m., Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

Actually Jason, it's you who doesn't understand. The courts are already a political instrument, and your party was the one that politicized them.

At 9:51 a.m., Blogger GenX at 40 said...

Brooks! Give us one shred of evidence that the Court is politicized in its rulings and that it is not following the law. One bit of evidence of any kind. Maybe from the Mulroney appointee led SCC. One? No?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home