i agree that 75 is about right for court justices. but, i think the more important concern right now is a mandatory retirement age for the president. i frankly don't think either of these candidates should be allowed to run, at their ages. 70 sounds about right as a mandatory retirement age, meaning the functional enforcement in the primaries would be 62, to allow for two terms.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-martin/fixing-the-us-supreme-court_b_11197060.html
Saturday, August 13, 2016
it almost seems like he wants to pick a fight with the court.
i'm on the courts' side. this doofus shouldn't be fucking with things he doesn't understand.
====
Constitution of Court
4 (1) The Court shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada, and eight puisne judges.
(2) The judges shall be appointed by the Governor in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal.
Who may be appointed judges
5 Any person may be appointed a judge who is or has been a judge of a superior court of a province or a barrister or advocate of at least ten years standing at the bar of a province.
5.1 For greater certainty, for the purpose of section 5, a person may be appointed a judge if, at any time, they were a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years standing at the bar of a province.
he is constitutionally barred from just selling it to the highest bidder, and then using 'diversity' as the excuse for the sale.
the chief justice is calling for him to quickly pick the justice. if you read between the lines, you can see she's concerned and wants the issue dealt with in a way that minimizes delays.
this is a constitutional crisis. again. that's twice - this summer.
i know he's massively popular. that's fine. great, even. it means the party has found a way to win elections. the other option is even worse. it really is. i just want the party to be making choices. maybe i'm wrong, but i just can't interpret this as the work of the party.
to be clear: "independent, non-partisan body" doesn't mean "less corrupt". it just means "almost impossible to audit".
diversity is not an end, but a means to one. i'm still convinced he's naive and needs better advisers. some of his advisers may be a little skunky. that's right: an inside job. but, how about this, junior: instead of promoting lawyers to the top bench (that are conveniently friendly to specific interests? like oil interests?), why don't we try getting some more diversity in the lower courts first, and then promote people as they distinguish themselves? in the mean time, we can continue to focus on substantive appointments for the highest court in the land. because it is, after all, the highest court in the land.
back in the 90s, carolyn bennett led somewhat of a revolt against female representation. at the time, there were simply not a lot of women mps. what could be done? well, you start by drawing attention to the problem. a few of the good ones got promoted, and they led the way for a generational overturn. today, there's enough representation for parity in cabinet without any serious debate or push back. that's obviously not true on the bench. but it might be twenty years from now, if you make the right choices at the lower courts.
and, apparently there's plenty of openings, too.
i'm on the courts' side. this doofus shouldn't be fucking with things he doesn't understand.
====
Constitution of Court
4 (1) The Court shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada, and eight puisne judges.
(2) The judges shall be appointed by the Governor in Council by letters patent under the Great Seal.
Who may be appointed judges
5 Any person may be appointed a judge who is or has been a judge of a superior court of a province or a barrister or advocate of at least ten years standing at the bar of a province.
5.1 For greater certainty, for the purpose of section 5, a person may be appointed a judge if, at any time, they were a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years standing at the bar of a province.
he is constitutionally barred from just selling it to the highest bidder, and then using 'diversity' as the excuse for the sale.
the chief justice is calling for him to quickly pick the justice. if you read between the lines, you can see she's concerned and wants the issue dealt with in a way that minimizes delays.
this is a constitutional crisis. again. that's twice - this summer.
i know he's massively popular. that's fine. great, even. it means the party has found a way to win elections. the other option is even worse. it really is. i just want the party to be making choices. maybe i'm wrong, but i just can't interpret this as the work of the party.
to be clear: "independent, non-partisan body" doesn't mean "less corrupt". it just means "almost impossible to audit".
diversity is not an end, but a means to one. i'm still convinced he's naive and needs better advisers. some of his advisers may be a little skunky. that's right: an inside job. but, how about this, junior: instead of promoting lawyers to the top bench (that are conveniently friendly to specific interests? like oil interests?), why don't we try getting some more diversity in the lower courts first, and then promote people as they distinguish themselves? in the mean time, we can continue to focus on substantive appointments for the highest court in the land. because it is, after all, the highest court in the land.
back in the 90s, carolyn bennett led somewhat of a revolt against female representation. at the time, there were simply not a lot of women mps. what could be done? well, you start by drawing attention to the problem. a few of the good ones got promoted, and they led the way for a generational overturn. today, there's enough representation for parity in cabinet without any serious debate or push back. that's obviously not true on the bench. but it might be twenty years from now, if you make the right choices at the lower courts.
and, apparently there's plenty of openings, too.
at
09:01
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)