Harper Alters Supreme Court Nomination Process

>Harper said the committee will not have the power to confirm or quash the nomination after it questions the prospective judge four days later, on Feb. 27. He reserves that right for himself, as prime minister, and pledged to announce his decision on March 1.

If the committee is powerless, what is its purpose? I agree with the questioning of nominees, and I agree that those doing the questioning should be of the 4 parties. What's missing is what they can do about it if they don't like the nominee, and it seems that the answer is "nothing" as Harper will reserve that right for himself.

Just tries to make it look as though he's making changes.

Rico AB.

It all about painting a picture that leave the impression change took place, nothing more , nothing less and the party stays in control and that the power remains in the hands of the party. We have been given a pretty worm , it other words we have been baited . Now how many are going to fall for the bait?
Same old ..same old. The dog is still left chasing its tail. By the way we are the dog.

---
Good government is not a party government

Yup. Although to be honest I'm glad he isn't weakening the federal government...in the Globe and Mail today on the front cover I can see our patriotic CEOs are thrilled to keep pushing for more power for provinces--to enhance their power of course.

---
"A Liberal is someone who refuses to take his own side in a fight".

-Robert Frost

Well that what it is all about "POWER" & "CONTROLL" , why do you think they need political parties? It is their door to achieving and enhancing power of course.

Want to slay the dragon, cut off its heard, don't mess with it ,you stop uppper class people like Emerson, but beheading the party.

---
Good government is not a party government

What exactly are you advocating here wayne?
are you threatening assassination?

---
People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs.
Alexei Sayle

>What exactly are you advocating here wayne?
are you threatening assassination?

I had to re-read Wayne's comment to make sure that I hadn't missed anything. I hadn't. Wow, that was quite a stretch!

Rico AB.

"Wow, that was quite a stretch!"
I agree! Wayne does tend to stretch credulity
LOL

---
People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs.
Alexei Sayle

I submit that Harper and any of his ilk: Klein, Campbell, etc are "Lawful Evil" in alignment.

Anyone who's ever played an rpg will understand my point.

Comments?

my concern about this change is about how much it mirrors the American process. It seems to me, that with this approach, a government can appear to weigh all kinds of candidates, and meanwhile, under the guise of a legitimate process, air the dirty laundy (however irrelevant) of proposed candidates for the Supreme Court.

It seems like a fantastic way to publically discredit nominees based on perception. A LOT of people who have firm standing in academic and judicial circles simply won't do well in a media circus (ie public grilling).

It seems to be a way of politicizing the Supreme Court. Of course female judges will be researched to find out if they've ever had an abortion (or sanctioned one) and god forbid that a college roomate should come forward and disclose that a nominee 'inhaled'.

I'm not endorsing anyone or any particular leaning, just pointing out that once the vetting becomes public, it can never be made private again.

Prime Ministers will have to select judges who will make them 'look good' in terms of reelection/campaign financing rather than looking at who to appoint so as to ensure a balanced high court.

---
... just a friendly reminder to always take the internet less seriously than you take your gut!

<p>“Hi, I’m Brother Jonathan. I’m a recovering RPGer.”</p> <p>I do understand your point, but I lack context. Whom in Canadian politics would you describe as being Lawful Neutral? Who would be (Absolute) Neutral? Would anyone rate as Neutral Evil?</p><p>---<br>Shatter your ideals upon the rock of Truth.<br />
<br />
— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan<br />

<p>Even without public hearings, I’d think that one factor in the appointment process would be taking into account the reactions of major contributors to a PM’s party — or perhaps that’s just some Yankee cynicism rearing its ugly head …</p><p>---<br>Shatter your ideals upon the rock of Truth.<br />
<br />
— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan<br />

Sorry, the closest I could come to that would be to wishfully refer to Stockwell Day as "Nuetered Evil".

But alas, he has successfully passed on his genes.

What is with that CBC link?

I heard Harper say when questioned about judges refusing to participate in the process he said something like "anyone wanting to cap off their career with such a "plum" job should not object to questioning". Well, well, well, so where has he been since the election? Where has he been for public questioning with regards to Emerson, Fortier, and O'Conner? Where are most of the Con MPs when it comes to answering questions? They must be trying to figure out a way to change name-calling, smear, innuendo, blame and spin from not-so-plum-opposition questions to plum-leadership answers.

---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche