Infected Mushroom wrote:Ifreann wrote:Indeed, you should probably have a conversation with your tutors about just how you managed to get to this point in your education without knowing about the composition of your Supreme Court.
Are you suggesting that in a few decades there will not be any individuals in Quebec qualified to be appointed to the Supreme Court?
Why does this matter?Are you suggesting that in a few decades there will not be any individuals in Quebec qualified to be appointed to the Supreme Court?
No I'm saying right now Quebec is already over-represented (~20% of the population of Canada but getting 33% of the seats in the Supreme Court). In the future, when Quebec's population lags further behind the rest of Canada as a whole, it would make even less sense to still have that already nonsensical 1/3 guaranteed representation. It would be even more unfair to the other provinces.
You've yet to explain why the number of Supreme Court judges from a given province should be based on that provinces population. Also, after a few seconds on Wikipedia I have learned that Canada has ten provinces and three territories. There are nine judges on the Supreme Court of Canada. If you want the provinces and territories to be represented proportional to their populations then you're gonna need a bigger court.
Indeed, you should probably have a conversation with your tutors about just how you managed to get to this point in your education without knowing about the composition of your Supreme Court.
We jumped straight into the case law (provinces vs federal governments) without really getting quizzed on this.
There are no tutors unless you pay for them.
Ye gods.
Sanctissima wrote:Ifreann wrote:Canada's judiciary is appointed, not elected, no doubt to Canada's lasting benefit.
No exactly.
I mean, they're appointed by our governor-general, who's appointed by the queen of England.
As far as supreme court judges are concerned, the governor-general basically appoints whoever the prime minister tells him/her to appoint, since the entire governor-general position is at most, symbolic.
This has been the cause of problems in the past, since the prime minister can basically just choose who he likes more to be the next supreme court judge (the position's pretty much for life, so that's quite a deal of judicial influence). Parliament has little to no say whatsoever in terms of who the judge is going to be. Thankfully, few supreme court judges have died during Harper's reign (since most of us hate his guts), so he hasn't been able to appoint any judges to screw our country over.
So yeah, our judicial system is crap, thank you very much.
If you have that big a problem with your PM then I don't know why you'd expect an elected Supreme Court to be any better.
The Four Taxmen of the Apocalypse wrote:Ifreann wrote:Canada's judiciary is appointed, not elected, no doubt to Canada's lasting benefit.
But as you yourself first pointed out, they can only be appointed within the rule that 3 of the 9 must be from the Quebec judiciary.
This is a legal requirement. As you pointed out.
I'm aware.
The legal (but not constitutional)
Is that not a contradiction?
requirement is undemocratic.
How is it? And further, if it is, so what?
The judiciary is a branch of government, no more and no less for being appointed by some other branch of government.
Are you suggesting that all branches of government must be democratic, even if appointed?
Also, you have a very strange user name. What's it mean?
Hell. In Irish.
And where is that written? Can people from outside Quebec not move there, study law, and get appointed to the Supreme Court?