If it wasn’t for the Supreme Politburo amending the Constitution America wouldn’t be a democracy today.
[quote=“jotham, post:80, topic:158311, full:true”]
I don’t know much about the Canadian situation, but I’m guessing you don’t have abortion or gay marriage solely because judges decreed it, which has happened in the States.[/quote]
You’re right about one thing: you don’t have a clue what goes on up there.
Same-sex marriage in Canada was progressively introduced in several provinces by court decisions beginning in 2003 before being legally recognized nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act on 20 July 2005.
It was not technically the (federal) Supreme Court’s decision that changed the (federal) law, but that institution did give a reference at the government’s request. “Pre-litigation” if you will.
And yes, they talked about the tree.
I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.
The Court rejected this definition by applying the living tree doctrine used in the famous Persons case, analogizing the exclusion of women from the common law definition of “persons” to that of same-sex couples.
I have no interest in debating whether this is good or bad. But please get your facts straight.
“Biased courts are bad, which is why we need a conservative bias in the courts!” 
While we’re at it, there is an institution in Canada that originally was supposed to be biased.
In a nutshell: the House of Commons (the congress) is supposed to be what the name says – for the masses – while the Senate is supposed to be the chamber of “sober second thought” where the rich can make their voices heard. Hence the red color (“commoners” are stuck with green), the property requirement, and the lifetime appointments.
The $4000 property value obviously hasn’t been adjusted for inflation, and they found a loophole to let in a nun with a vow of poverty, so that part doesn’t really mean anything today. Still, it’s the kind of institution people associate with wealth and privilege, like the House of Lords.
Guess who spent a decade fighting for an elected senate. It must have been someone in the Trudeau Dynasty, right?
Answer: it was Harper the Conservative.
Now guess who, or what, stood in the way. Was it the “Supreme Politburo”?
In a nutshell: amending Canada’s constitution – really amending it, which is not the same as allowing it to develop naturally – is like amending Taiwan’s constitution: it won’t happen without massive support.
What were we talking about? Oh yeah, deep statism. Now back to that. 
[quote=“yyy, post:82, topic:158311”]
. . . In a nutshell: amending Canada’s constitution – really amending it, which is not the same as allowing it to develop naturally . . . [/quote]
I’m piurty sure Roe v. Wade is as much a part of the U.S. Constitution these days as the 14th Amendment so I’m not seeing the difference between amending the Constitution and “allowing it to develop naturally.”
“Allowing it to develop naturally” has a nice ring to it though, like organic food.
Sorry, I forgot about abortion.
[quote=“Winston_Smith, post:83, topic:158311, full:true”]
I don’t know much about the Canadian situation, but I’m guessing you don’t have abortion or gay marriage solely because judges decreed it, which has happened in the States.[/quote]
This is the case you’re looking for:
Only two of the three “conservative” judges at the time participated, one on each side. The case did not establish abortion as a constitutional right (though that fear was expressed in the dissent) but rather found that the abortion law that existed at the time was unconstitutional for other reasons.
That’s what most trees are – organic! 
Kudzu is organic too – which is how originalist sinners view legislation without representation.
It’s good to know you care so much about ecology, Comrade! 
Yes, this is not the same situation as I’m talking about on abortion wherein the court is taking on a hot-issue of the day in their hands against the legislature . Canada already legalized abortion by law. This court decision just was nitpicking stuff in the law, which isn’t so much going against the will of the people than in the USA where abortion was illegal and the courts struck it down.
But I see now that they are creating rights that are extra-constitutional as well, so perhaps it is a global thing, that courts have learned from each other, or from the States.
Yes, again, same-sex marriage was legalized by legislature reflecting the will of the people of Canada, which they couldn’t do here in States. There is a federalism principle at work here in Canada. It started with lower courts, provincial courts, which puts the fight on more local levels, at the provincial level. We had this happening as well, and several states had already legalized gay marriage, some 20 I believe, and not much protest from that. But that wasn’t enough for our Supreme Court.
Indeed, our Supreme Court have intervened on these hot-issues many times not only federally, but striking down state laws as well, such as on gay-marriage and abortion.
The same-sex case was particularly interesting because the parties had redress at lower levels, the lesbian couple were given the benefits and rights they were seeking, so it didn’t need to go to the Supreme Court at all. But the Democrats out of the Court and in the Court expedited the case to the Supreme Court so that Obama’s judges could decree it and legislate it from the bench, since there was no way they could succeed legislatively.
It’s this kind of thing, very unnatural, not according to process or procedure according to the merits of the individual cases, but hurried along by Democrats for political ambitions, their abuses, that puts the spotlight on our courts and make them so controversial.
Maybe having five “activist” liberals running the country rather than the “deplorable” people is best. The least Democrats could do though in the interests of fairness and honesty is to change their name to Politburocrats.
That’s what the Liberal government did, minus your procedural violation: it expedited the matter by asking the Supreme Court for its opinion.
And while we’re at it, the SC was then 7-2 “Liberal” to “Conservative”. The result was unanimous.
I missed the part where Obama conspired to violate procedure and get Obergefell heard sooner. Can you provide a reference?
Canada already legalized abortion by law. This court decision just was nitpicking stuff in the law, which isn’t so much going against the will of the people than in the USA where abortion was illegal and the courts struck it down.
Not really. It was illegal, with exceptions for medical necessity. What the SC found was that women whose health was in danger needed to jump through too many hoops to get their exceptions approved, so it struck down the ban completely. (The government came up with a new ban, but the Senate blocked it.)
The point is that there is very little talk in Canada of revolution or civil war, or even of needing to solve the alleged politicization of the judiciary by politicizing it.
In the U.S. there’s very little talk any longer of amending the Constitution, even though the longest drought between amendments since the Civil War is now upon the country with no end in sight.
[quote]America’s longest drought between constitutional amendments since the Civil War was from 1870 to 1913. In that time, there were two presidential assassinations and several financial panics; the light bulb, telephone, movie theater, radio, and airplane were invented; the Supreme Court legalized segregation; fire destroyed Chicago and an earthquake flattened San Francisco; and the United States added eleven new states. Despite the frenzy, the Constitution went untouched.
The most recent amendment—the Twenty-Seventh in 1992, which prohibits changes to congressional salaries from taking effect until the next term—was an unfinished James Madison plan unearthed by University of Texas student Gregory Watson, who earned a C for finding it. The amendment before that, the Twenty-Sixth, was the last to add an original idea to the Constitution. It lowered the voting age to 18 and passed in 1971.
Measuring from the Twenty-Sixth, the country is about to tie that long drought between amendments. Even counting from the Twenty-Seventh, for the first time since 1913 (when Congress passed two amendments), it will soon be possible for someone to enter law school having lived his or her entire life under a static Constitution.[/quote]
The argument could be made that that’s because the U.S. Constitution was nearly perfect in 1971 and no longer needs updating. Or one could argue that nothing of fundamental importance has occurred in American society in the last fifty years. Or maybe one could argue that the Constitution of 2017 is no different from the Constitution of 1971.
No one within range is that dumb most likely though so that only leaves one possibility: the alleged politicization of the “activist” wing of the judiciary in the U.S., with its discovery in the 1970’s that the Constitution is a “living document”, is most likely fact, at least as far as the U.S. is concerned.
[quote=“Winston_Smith, post:91, topic:158311, full:true”]
In the U.S. there’s very little talk any longer of amending the Constitution, even though the longest drought between amendments since the Civil War is now upon the country with no end in sight.[/quote]
One of the reasons I liked Governor Perry for Presidential candidate is because he talked about repealing some of those progressive-era amendments in the early 1900s like the 16th establishing income tax, and the 17th establishing popular vote on Senate. I really hate the 17th, we wouldn’t have so many problems with Obama’s agenda going through, especially Obamacare, if the states still had their voice in the Senate. Obama just walked all over them, they couldn’t do nothing.
So talk of a state convention to amend the Constitution and return power from federal government back to the sovereign States began and precipitated during Obama, which has never been done before. States having lost their voice, this was the only way they could reclaim it.
I see an article that Texas Senate just passed it today with the House having done so previously, so far 9 states have passed it in both chambers and 10 states in only one chamber and another 22 states actively considering it. they need some 34 states (2/3) to call a convention and 38 states (3/4) to pass amendments; it’s still building momentum:
[quote=“yyy, post:90, topic:158311, full:true”]
That’s what the Liberal government did, minus your procedural violation: it expedited the matter by asking the Supreme Court for its opinion.[/quote]
Our Congressional Republicans tried to defend the law because Obama, who is supposed to execute the law, declared he was out to lunch, he wouldn’t be executing or defending the law. But Justice Scalia said for Congress to bring suits is uncouth:
First, he declared he wouldn’t defend marriage act DOMA, and then had his White House lawyer actively working on both the Edith Windsor case and Obergefell working against the law actually going the opposite direction what the Executive is supposed to be doing.
It was the Edith Windsor case that had already been resolved at lower levels. Says Scalia in the dissent on that case:
[quote=yyy]Not really. It was illegal, with exceptions for medical necessity. What the SC found was that women whose health was in danger needed to jump through too many hoops to get their exceptions approved, so it struck down the ban completely. (The government came up with a new ban, but the Senate blocked it.)
The point is that there is very little talk in Canada of revolution or civil war, or even of needing to solve the alleged politicization of the judiciary by politicizing it.[/quote]
The Canadian Court struck it down and encouraged the government to make a better law. So they did, and they made doctors responsible if health of women were not at risk, then the Senate blocked it by a tie vote. The point is that the matter was finally decided by your legislative process after the Court had intervened and encouraged the government to try again. That’s why there’s not so much polarization about the court there.
Back on topic…
I’m wondering why this wasn’t done much sooner, like late January. Perhaps his first major dropped ball.
Yeah, this should have been done right out of the gate, especially considering that their appointments were all based on ideological purity rather than competence.
I suppose it wasn’t done in the interests of keeping open warfare from breaking out. But open warfare was always in the cards, and it makes sense to get rid of fifth columnists immediately.
And you just know all the incriminating evidence against Bubbette and Douche has been shredded by now.
He should’ve offered a deal right after the election: Those who preserve evidence or rat out shredders will be rewarded, everyone else will be fired, and those caught shredding will be prosecuted.
Agreeing not to prosecute that harpy was his Chamberlain moment. But nobody’s perfect.
Should a deal be offered to whistle blowers who preserve evidence of law-breaking by the Deep State or just those who preserve evidence of law breaking by Trump’s political opponents?
It just gets curiouser and curiouser:
Curiouser indeed.
[quote]“It’s highly unlikely there was a wiretap,” said one former senior intelligence official familiar with surveillance law who spoke candidly on the condition of anonymity. The former official continued: “It seems unthinkable. If that were the case by some chance, that means that a federal judge would have found that there was either probable cause that he had committed a crime or was an agent of a foreign power.”
A wiretap cannot be directed at a U.S. facility, the official said, without finding probable cause that the phone lines or Internet addresses were being used by agents of a foreign power — or by someone spying for or acting on behalf of a foreign government. “You can’t just go around and tap buildings,” the official said.[/quote]
Somebody needs to update “former senior intelligence official” on Stellar Wind:
[quote]The original (New York) Times story that exposed the wiretap component of STELLAR WIND gave an approximate measure of how many people were under warrantless surveillance at any given time: up to 500 in the US and 5,000-7,000 foreigners. But since names were added and dropped from the target lists over time, it was hard to know the total number of people the NSA had spied on. The Times did quote anonymous officials suggesting that the number of domestic targets “may have reached into the thousands since the program began,” however.
The IG report finally gives us some hard numbers—though it only counts the phone lines and e-mail addresses targeted for collection, not individual human targets, which seems likely to be a somewhat smaller figure. The NSA intercepted communications to or from a total of 37,644 e-mail addresses and phone numbers over the life of the program. About eight percent of the total—3,018—were believed to belong to Americans. Of course, an American didn’t need to be targeted to get sucked into the NSA’s vacuum cleaner; any conversation between someone in the US and one of those 34,646 foreign e-mail accounts or phone lines would have been tapped as well.[/quote]
Maybe Melania is suspected of being a commie mole. She’s probably got plenty of questionable email and phone contacts in Eastern Europe.
Some historical perspective: