Sunday shopping
Same sex marriage
Swing clubs
Pornography
Medical marihuana and now
Prostitution
Why is it that these decisions are being made by judges and not legislators? Is it because legislatures no longer can take on controversial issues? Or is it because judges have political agendas?
My sense is that it's the former and not the latter -- but then what if the legislatures did take a firm position? Would the Courts defer? I suppose we won't know until legislation is passed that clearly enunciates a strong social position -- if such ever happens... .
10 comments:
My understanding is that the legislators are responsible to make the laws and the courts to uphold their legality. The public has a much more influential role if the legislators make the laws as they have some control over who is elected. Judges are not controlled by anyone other than the Judicial Council and the public knows little about the morals and beliefs of those appointed to the bench or the council.
I haven't tracked it against those partic. e.g.'s, but part of the answer may be the Court Challenges Program (which Harper scrapped), which the Lib's allegedly introduced to enable the advocacy groups to advance the progressive agenda they knew needed to happen in such a way that they wouldn't have to "wear it" in the polls.
For better or for worse legislatures are biased in favour of the status quo. Its easier politically to do nothing than to take action. On each of those issues, prohibition (in one form or another) was the status quo. Thankfully we have a charter so the cause of freedom can be advanced by the courts despite crypto-religious authoritarians.
Wait a minute. Giving the courts the responsibility to itnerpret legislation and strike it down if it contravenes our constitution is a political decision.
People have to stop this nonsense about judges making decisions based on their own "morals or beliefs". They base their decisions on the law, and the evidence before them. In this case the decision was based on the evidence (danger to women), and the law (criminal code and Charter). The fact is Canada decriminalized prostitution a long time ago.
Politicians are scared shitless to deal with them. Judges have immunity and can make such decisions without consequence.
This has no bearing on the quality of the decisions however. I typically agree with such judgments, looking back at them.
Gayle;
It is not nonsense. There was a concern that agenda driven judges could be appointed.The judges could trample human rights. PM Paul Martin said so.
Anyone who believes there is a law that is black and white for judges to use isn't aware of how many places the law can be applied in different ways and how many areas they deal with where there is no set law. The length of prison term or amount of a fine are simple examples. Child custody is another where many judges automatically award custody to the mother and refuse to believe some mothers lie and parental alienation exists.
Oh dear lord. Now people are just making stuff up.
I understand what you believe, but a little evidence to support those beliefs would be nice. I have seen judges who are strong, long term supporters of conservatives and social conservatism sit on the bench and make rulings that would seemingly go against their "beliefs and morals". I have seen the exact opposite with judges who previously appeared to be strong advocates for a progressive agenda.
You know why? Because the LAW and the FACTS of the individual cases drove them to make decisions in conformity with that law and those facts. I have never seen a custody case where custody "automatically" goes to the mother. I have seen cases where the primary care giver prior to the separation was the mother (which happens far more often than the other way around and is a decision that is mutually agreed upon by both parents prior to the divorce). Custody generally goes to the primary care giver - for good reason.
Of course there has to be individual weighing and balancing in all cases, but that does not necessarily mean the judge is going to apply their own morals and beliefs.
That is just nonsense.
Actually, scratch that thing about custody. It is my understanding now that the fall back position on custody is that it be joint between the parents, with the primary care giver being the one with whom the children generally reside, depending on the access given to the other parent. Most of the cases I know about involves almost a 50/50 split in time spent with each parent.
"The length of prison term or amount of a fine are simple examples."
In every sentencing case there are mitigating and aggravating factors. These are all considered in reaching a sentence. There is a range of sentences for each offence that is appropriate. Go under or over that range and you better make sure you have justified that decision or it will be overturned on appeal.
It is not that hard to understand if you know what you are talking about.
Post a Comment