I have no clue what your trying to say here?

The only Trump style politician is Justin Trudeau and his corruption, lies and ethics violations. Hey at least Trump never made anyone give him a blowjob before appointing them to cabinet

Are u against this law u talk about ?

Ill be honest its not a priority to me at all . The less news I see the better .Will see if he wins the fight against a powerhouse like Meta

It’s ok .
I’m just asking because if your for it , it got pros and cons for jt and any other politicians about it .

I felt being dishonest to use that law as a kind of exploitation in jt advantages …

This law as big time implication in many aspect that far outweighs jt.

My goodness, what on earth fringe conspiracy are you talking about? Normally I hear the standard con conspiracy of the day before you parrot it here on the forum, but this one is all new to me!

Nice to see Justin selling Judges Positions now

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...48c083288&ei=9


Yes all the positions were based on merit like awarding a contract to the We Charity

National Post being very disingenuous here and you falling for it. This is percentage of those that donated. Most have no record of donating. So that works out to only 13% of judges who donated to the liberals. Basically zero indication of anything wrong from a partisan perspective.

Actually, I think Lozen's making things up to pile on to NP's disingenuousness - maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anyone in the article suggest "Justin selling Judges Positions".

That said, I do find this concerning, even though you are correct about the numbers. I've always been happy that we don't have a hyper-partisan appointment system like the US does, but at least theirs is more transparent. I've sort of been taking it for granted that our appointments are done more apolitically, but I have wondered because I don't really know for certain and while that article didn't suddenly convince me that our process is broken, it does raise my level of concern.

By most indications, the system is pretty good. It is more bureaucratic for superior and federal courts and basically zero reason to suspect a sustained partisan stacking like we see in the US. Supreme Court is in principle more susceptible to this type of thing given the direct appointment by the PM, but the so called “quite” process (ie no opposition positions like the senate ratification in the us) has historically been pretty good. This isn’t quite the same as saying zero problems, more that the issues can’t be detected in the manner suggested by the article.

IMHO judge should be elected by the whole chamber and senate by a ratio higher then 50% to reduce to maximum the self interest of political parties .
especially in a multi political parties like Canadian have .
Even more so when u can have crazies like trump too ….

I'm not sure if that's an improvement. Putting it in the hands of the party rather than just the PM sounds better, and that means needing the support of another party if you're a minority government. But does that change anything when the party is expected to get in line with the PM's wishes? In a minority government situation, their partners will likely be unwilling to scuttle things over the appointment of a judge unless it's something really egregious. On the negative side, do appointments then become circuses like we see in the US? I'm not necessarily against the idea, but I'm not sure if it would be better or worse.

I guess the best thing about our system now is the mandatory retirement age, and the disciplinary process. I think one of the biggest problems in the US system is the lifetime appointments, which allows a president to shape the judiciary for decades to come simply because they were in power when multiple SC justices passed.

I'm certainly not suggesting we need to overhaul our system, but a little more transparency would be a good thing.

The US system worked very well for judges you needed 60 votes then the democrats changed it to 50 . Though you are correct in todays partisan political system not as much but it still takes a majority to approve.
That would work well in our system as well

The Americans could use this system or should I say need this in a bad way .

AS for Canada I would be more curious about the amount they donated that were appointed by Liberals .

The legal maximum is 1650 to the federal party. It’s a pittance. Your ludicrous idea of “selling” judge seats is an outlandish conspiracy theory.

And yet.

You know what Ill do something you incapable of doing admitting you were wrong or apologizing . My mother was like that she thought it was a sign of weakness I have a friend like that also

So yes me inferring Trudeau sold positions on the court is wrong if the max is $1650.00

Though I am sure they have a team of legal experts that choose the judges they think will side with their ideology and I am sure the conservatives will do the same

That's great that you admitted you were wrong, but it is probably worth doing a bit of soul searching about WHY you were wrong. Because it wasn't just that there was an easily disproven fact I could show you. There was never a sniff of evidence of "selling" seats, so why did you jump to that conclusion?

Yeah bad on me trusting a media piece Ill do better. Ill stick to the CBC from now on

Well latest Poll has Justin at his lowest approval rating yet 31 % approved of the job he is doing

Dude, you make this mistake all the time. It is because when you see anything that triggers your Hulk Smash Trudeau reaction you run with it without stopping to even think about it. Look at your post here where you toss in a whole lot of snark and out of context whatabouts to offset admitting you were just flat out wrong in how you interpreted the story.

Hey, I encourage that behavior from derps for the US election, because it is why they have been losing for many years in a row, but if you, and others like you, go full derp here then you will enjoy Trudeau as a leader for a lot longer than you want, unless for some reason you enjoy him being the leader so that you can whine about him. Who knows, maybe that is your thing, but it would be genuinely refreshing to have a sane voice speak for the conservative agenda, but that aint happening here for the time being.

As bad as the national post piece was, it didn't say anything at all about "selling". That was entirely made up by you. Why? Why did your mind go there? What mental processes are you going to ensure so it doesn't happen again?

HULK SMASH - TRUDEAU BAD!

Seriously, you have not figured this out yet from his posts. He consumes a massive amount of content and if something triggers his Hulk Smash Trudeau reaction - he goes with it, even if the article was not created for that purpose. Sad part is, I do not think he does this to intentionally lie/misrepresent like some others posters on this forum do, but this is a hole he dug for himself at this point, and I think it controls him more than he controls it.

Bro move on I said I was wrong. I despise Trudeau

Learn from my post to admit when your wrong you and Trudeau have one thing in common your both narcissists

Nice to see the father giving a break by the courts. Sadly he was acting in the best interest of his child

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...6f8bfd1e&ei=18


Lets hope this young man doesn't regret his decision later in life .

I never realized in BC that using the wrong pronoun was considered family violence

No, you did not clearly say you were wrong, you instead said

which implied they were the ones who were wrong, not you. Then you tossed in snark about CBC and then after a random get off my lawn comment about Trudeau. It was a bad version of "I am sorry you react they way you do" type of apology, and you do this all the time, which is a shame as it would be nice to have a conservative voice here to read that approached it in a sane and professional manner.

All the best.

Read the earlier Post were i said