6

Should the House of Commons have the final say on Supreme Court nominations?


 


 
Filed under:

Should the House of Commons have the final say on Supreme Court nominations?

  1. Only if it were a free vote, as in choosing the speaker

    • Ugh. Even then.
      Remember the primary qualification of an MP is to be able to get elected. That doesn’t imply  any sort of good judgement, knowledge of the law or our justice system.  Hell, given the result in Quebec last election, it doesn’t even imply a strong connection with the constituency.

      This is something that should be left primarily to experts, with perhaps a small amount of input from the general public/politicians.

    • Even “free votes” aren’t necessarily, as the party obviously remembers who voted how regardless of official discipline. In choosing the speaker, Conservative leadership made it very clear that MPs were free to vote for whomever they liked along the way, as long as they went with the Con at the end. What a shock that the final vote broke down precisely along party lines.

    • Nice idea but there is no such thing as a free vote.

  2. “No. It would make the appointments needlessly political.”   

    As if being appointed by the PM isn’t political.

  3. Talk about using weasel words to misconstrue even a simple little poll. Thankfully there are alternative news sources that are for the most part run without specific agenda. I haven’t bought a Macleans mag for years, Used to be fairly balanced moderate reporting. Now it’s so far right I can smell the PM’s behind from here…

Sign in to comment.