we'll have to see what the results are.
but, what terrible judgement.
the prime minister's office recently appointed the person that approved this ad to pick the next supreme court justice of canada.
the actual truth is that the selection was probably calculated to appeal to female identity voters - ignoring the fact that she's a monster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PikszBkfTHM
it would be really great if they'd stop electioneering and start governing.
it's not just bad judgement, it's also a real slap in the face.
remember: canada has a recall process. sort of. we can remove sitting prime ministers through a vote of non-confidence. we don't directly elect them, and the election is not in any way interpreted as a vote for prime minister, either formally or informally. the liberals could remove trudeau at any given point.
i think the most recent example of this was in australia.
the court nomination process is not minor. we'll see what comes out of it. but, if he appoints some "bipartisan" judge, i'd expect to hear a mutiny rumbling.
if i was there, i'd be leading the charge.
canada's greatest strength up to now has been it's court. we have very liberal courts, because we are able to appoint the judges more or less at whim. nowhere did he campaign on making it harder for liberal prime ministers to continue to appoint liberal judges. in fact, he won in a landslide.
not only is there no mandate for this, but it's directly opposite to his mandate - and entirely out of right field.
if you're on the political left, it is of the utmost importance that we retain control of the courts. i don't know where this idea of giving the courts away to a "non-partisan process" (read: corporate stacking) comes from, but it really has to be stopped.
i voted for the liberals and i want the liberals to appoint a very, very, very liberal judge. this is not complicated.
the existing selection process is not a problem, and it doesn't require a fix.
thankfully, i don't believe that what they're setting up is constitutional. ironically, the court itself will strike it down - should somebody challenge it. but, there's a lot of red flags going off regarding the amount of flat out fuckery this guy wants to push through. i don't know what it is...
his father was a law professor, a constitutional expert - perhaps not a gentleman, but certainly a scholar. justin trudeau has no meaningful academic background. and, he simply shouldn't be fucking with the way that government operates, like this.
i really think that the party has an obligation to step in.
i mean, my vote was premised upon two things that i thought would be obvious:
(1) he knew his role was to campaign, not to govern.
(2) the party was in charge.
i'm not sure either are panning out, right now.
the idea that the liberal party would have any reason to fuck with the court selection process is incoherent. he wants to one-up his father. and, he can't be allowed to fail.
if he wants to one-up his father, he should step down immediately, go back to school and run again in ten-twenty years.
as of right now, the premise is preposterous and the party cannot sit back and continue to entertain his absurd whims.
i just want to...
it's not like hw and w bush. the biggest problem is trying to compare the elder bush to the elder trudeau.
it's more like john adams and john quincy adams, in the sense that pierre trudeau was so important in drafting the country's constitution. but, john quincy adams was actually consdered a good statesman. i'm left kind of wishing that monroe or madison or even jefferson had a well-meaning but ill-equipped son. that is the right level of relative importance!
don't make the comparison, though. the elder trudeau was far too important in canadian history to compare him to a one-term president. you can't get a proper understanding of the trudeau name, that way.
let me be more explicit, but terse: if you set up an "independent, non-partisan" body then what is going to happen within minutes is that it is going to get captured by financial interests. this has been studied to death. you only do this if you're ignorant or you're corrupt - you're either not well enough read on the topic, or you actually want the body to get captured. i suspect the former.
there is no debate on the outcome. all independent bodies get captured. there are no exceptions. this is a failed policy approach.
so, when applied to a court selection process, the so-called independent body that he's setting up to prevent back room deals (a problem that doesn't exist...) can be nothing more or less than opening up the process to an open lobbying procedure in a way that is at arms-length from any accountable process. i almost want to throw orwell at you yet again, but i really do think that this is less corruption and more incompetence.
regardless, what he's done here - whether he realizes it or not - is put the seat up for sale.
his father would have rejected anything of the sort, which is just my point. it's not that he had some magical properties that the son could have inherited. he was just very educated on the topic and had the experience to see how things would logically unfold. he would not have bought into such nonsense.
again: i think most people assumed the party was in charge. very few people would have voted for a 40 year-old drama teacher, otherwise - even considering how unpopular the incumbent was. and, this is not what anybody voted for.
broadly speaking, every time you hear the terms "bipartisan" or "non-partisan", that is newspeak for "unaccountability" and "corporate oligarchy". it means that the government is relinquishing control to capital.