Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Canada@The HotStove Club -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cush who wrote (868)	3/2/2019 9:50:35 PM
From: axial	Respond to of 1199

This forum exists to solicit thought and logical argument. Agreement? Sometimes, but not necessarily. "We do not agree on this issue." Fine. I understand your thinking, and you understand mine. No need for long, never-ending debate. As to the advisability of extending personal experience to judgements on large-number populational issues — that's another matter, about which I've long intended to post.

To: Cush who wrote (868)	3/26/2019 7:08:19 AM
From: axial	Respond to of 1199

In your first message on this issue, you said: "It seems to me that Trudeau tried to bring new, fresh blood into the governing party. It also seems to me that Jody Wilson-Raybould might have benefited from a little more political experience before being given the responsibilities she was." ... and later ... "If that`s the case, then her problem is she could not tolerate the advice she was being offered and viewed opinions other than her own as undue pressure. I would be surprised and disappointed if Trudeau gave her a Cabinet seat again." ___________________________ It seems the more we know, the less we understand. Unanswered questions remain -- many of them. For instance, what's driving the palace revolt among ministers? The whole damned affair has been a disaster for Liberals. Unless the story below is spin-doctoring, it looks like Wilson-Raybould was not only a political newbie, but a real maverick. If she advocated Joyal for the Supreme Court, I can well understand pushback from Trudeau and the cabinet. __________________________ \| __________________________ Relations between Trudeau, Wilson-Raybould began to fray over her Supreme Court pick: Sources ' Relations between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and then-Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould first began to fray in 2017 over concerns about her choice to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court of Canada. A year before cabinet discussions about a plea deal for Quebec engineering company SNC-Lavalin, Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould disagreed about her recommendation of Manitoba Justice Glenn D. Joyal, sources familiar with the matter tell CTV News. Trudeau was concerned that Joyal wasn’t committed to protecting rights that have flown out of interpretation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly LGBTQ2 rights and even abortion access, neither of which are specifically enshrined in the Charter. Wilson-Raybould not only wanted Joyal named to the court to fill the vacancy left by Justice Beverley McLachlin’s resignation, she believed Joyal should replace McLachlin as the top court’s chief justice, a position that caused Trudeau to question his justice minister’s judgment, the sources said. According to the Canadian Press, Wilson-Raybould wrote a 60-page memo to Trudeau advocating for Joyal. [...] The Prime Minister’s Office was concerned about views Joyal expressed in a speech to the Canadian Constitution Foundation’s Law and Freedom Conference in the January 2017, in which he discussed about the way courts were interpreting the Charter, ushered in by Trudeau’s father. “It may be one of the bitter ironies of Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s Nation Building strategy of the 1980s, that despite the celebration and promotion of the Charter, it has led to an institutional imbalance that dilutes a source of Canadian distinctiveness,” he said in the speech. Joyal argued for a rebalancing the relationship between the courts and legislative branch. “I would hope and have every reason to believe, that this would signal the beginning of a true dialogue with the courts, where the resulting policies would, I suspect, reflect a traditionally pragmatic and uniquely Canadian mix of liberal and non-liberal values.” His speech raised concerns that Joyal, if appointed, would be less willing to protect rights that are based on a broader interpretation of the Charter. Joyal’s elevation to the chief justice of the Supreme Court would have been unusual, as the position is typically filled from current members of the court. The Prime Minister’s Office declined to comment on the matter.'