"Justin's decision to prorogue is reckless". Agreed.
I understand Christine's argument, and agree that it is a political decision, not a legal one.
As a citizen, I am disturbed because I have so little ability to influence the political process. A political process I see as bankrupt. I thought Stephen Harpers use of prorogation was wrong, and now I think Justin's use of prorogation as very very dubious. The precedents being set are disturbing.
Fundamentally, proroguing is a way to avoid accountability which is fundamentally un-democratic.
I echo your sentiments. It seems that our Prime Ministers have done everything possible to exploit and expand the use of the most undemocratic elements of the Westminster Parliamentary System. As a citizen I no longer see the Canadian system as truly democratic.
Thank you for this explanation of a legal challenge that, as I understand it: (1) is about issues that are not expressly regulated by the written Constitution at all and (2) are not regulated by legal instruments that dictate an obvious outcome, and (3) where a key issue of whether a Judge has any jurisdiction to meddle in this bailiwick at all.
All of which it is taking place in a setting where Parliament will soon be back in session, anyway, and can do whatever IT (Parliament) wants to do -- including, either confirming confidence in the existing Government, or sparking an election, which would make the legal challenge moot.
So who cares what Judges think?
Nevertheless, it it appears that an unelected Judge is being invited to regulate what the Prime Minister can ask for of the Governor General and when and why, and what the otherwise largely ceremonial Governor General can or must do in response. Although it is less clear how the Judge will even come to know what passed between them and for how long, or why it is that Judges have any say in the matter.
Accordingly, it seems to me that this exercise is either pure political posturing, or an unwise invitation to the Judicial Fox to enter the Political Henhouse. With the risk of yet an invention like the “Honour of the Crown” which has added so much uncertainty to aboriginal issues.
For after all, what REMEDY could a Judge craft in a timely way? And why should Parliament pay any attention to it? Moreover, assuming the Judge has “jurisdiction” at all, what can we expect next at the suit of supposedly simple citizens? Applications to the Courts about the Speaker’s rulings, or about unfair filibusters in committees or about disingenuous answers from Ministers of the Crown? What about the ability of a ruling party to call an “early election” as Premier Ford seems poised to do? Is that an “abuse of discretion”?
It seems to me that Judges have enough to do without being saddled with regulating Parliamentary procedure as well.
So, my bet is that if the case proceeds to a hearing, it will get tossed.
It all makes sense. Like Christine I think the decision to prorogue was political, and hopefully the Liberals will pay the price for placing their own political interests over those of Canada and Canadians. I expect the decision will be to not interfere in the proroguing decision.
"Justin's decision to prorogue is reckless". Agreed.
I understand Christine's argument, and agree that it is a political decision, not a legal one.
As a citizen, I am disturbed because I have so little ability to influence the political process. A political process I see as bankrupt. I thought Stephen Harpers use of prorogation was wrong, and now I think Justin's use of prorogation as very very dubious. The precedents being set are disturbing.
Fundamentally, proroguing is a way to avoid accountability which is fundamentally un-democratic.
I echo your sentiments. It seems that our Prime Ministers have done everything possible to exploit and expand the use of the most undemocratic elements of the Westminster Parliamentary System. As a citizen I no longer see the Canadian system as truly democratic.
I must say, as an American. I'm starting to really enjoy watching the Canadians shoot themselves in both feet, over and over and over again.
Between your liberal party, "terrorist" truckers and the CBC, it's entertaining to watch Canada devolve.
We're like California North.
Thank you for this explanation of a legal challenge that, as I understand it: (1) is about issues that are not expressly regulated by the written Constitution at all and (2) are not regulated by legal instruments that dictate an obvious outcome, and (3) where a key issue of whether a Judge has any jurisdiction to meddle in this bailiwick at all.
All of which it is taking place in a setting where Parliament will soon be back in session, anyway, and can do whatever IT (Parliament) wants to do -- including, either confirming confidence in the existing Government, or sparking an election, which would make the legal challenge moot.
So who cares what Judges think?
Nevertheless, it it appears that an unelected Judge is being invited to regulate what the Prime Minister can ask for of the Governor General and when and why, and what the otherwise largely ceremonial Governor General can or must do in response. Although it is less clear how the Judge will even come to know what passed between them and for how long, or why it is that Judges have any say in the matter.
Accordingly, it seems to me that this exercise is either pure political posturing, or an unwise invitation to the Judicial Fox to enter the Political Henhouse. With the risk of yet an invention like the “Honour of the Crown” which has added so much uncertainty to aboriginal issues.
For after all, what REMEDY could a Judge craft in a timely way? And why should Parliament pay any attention to it? Moreover, assuming the Judge has “jurisdiction” at all, what can we expect next at the suit of supposedly simple citizens? Applications to the Courts about the Speaker’s rulings, or about unfair filibusters in committees or about disingenuous answers from Ministers of the Crown? What about the ability of a ruling party to call an “early election” as Premier Ford seems poised to do? Is that an “abuse of discretion”?
It seems to me that Judges have enough to do without being saddled with regulating Parliamentary procedure as well.
So, my bet is that if the case proceeds to a hearing, it will get tossed.
It seems we need real reform which should include constitutional and parliamentary reforms. Politicians are not our friends.
It all makes sense. Like Christine I think the decision to prorogue was political, and hopefully the Liberals will pay the price for placing their own political interests over those of Canada and Canadians. I expect the decision will be to not interfere in the proroguing decision.