Democracy Gone Astray
Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.
All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.
[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]
Showing posts with label Supreme Court Appointment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court Appointment. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 04, 2017
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Questions linger about secret panel for Marc Nadon's appointment
It's been three weeks since the Supreme Court told the government its nominee, Justice Marc Nadon, is not eligible to sit as a member of the court.
Not only is little known about how he was chosen, there's also no new candidate in sight.
Nadon's name was on a list of three potential candidates. That list of three, which had been drawn up by a selection committee made up of MPs, was then sent to the government. That means two other candidates are presumably available to fill the empty Quebec seat on the top court. But it's not known who they are, or whether a new batch of candidates will be drawn up.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Quebec Bar Association asks feds to reconsider Supreme Court appointment
It decries the nomination of Justice Michael Moldaver, who does not speak French.
The bar association says Canadian citizens have the right to expect that, when they appear in court, they will be understood regardless of what official language they speak.
It says it would still oppose the nomination if Moldaver only spoke French — not English. The association says the issue here is that a nominee to the high court should be able to understand arguments in both official languages.
Yesterday’s nomination has intensified a debate over bilingualism in the justice system.
Opponents of mandatory bilingualism say what matters most is that a judge can understand the law — and, if there’s a problem with language, the court has translation services.
But the bar association says that’s not fair; it says an earpiece and interpreter are no substitute for understanding someone directly when they’re arguing in court.
The association says this appointment means two of the Supreme Court’s nine judges are now unilingual.
Origin
Source: Toronto Star
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
