Justin Trudeau to remove senators from Liberal caucus

[Chuck_Wagon]

Originally Posted by ali#1

I thought mulcair was opposition leader ?.

He is, but the CBC doesn't like to talk about that, takes some of the shine off of their natural governing parties golden boy.

[HunterDave]

Uh oh, it looks like Justin may have shot himself in the foot.....tsk, tsk, tsk.

"OTTAWA — They’re Liberal senators — and there’s nothing Justin Trudeau can do about it.

The group of senators jettisoned from his caucus this week pushed back against the Liberal leader Thursday, saying he couldn’t stop any of them from calling themselves Liberals.

“Justin Trudeau has no authority or authorization to determine my status in the chamber. I determine that,” said Sen. George Furey.

Sen. Terry Mercer, a former party president, was blunt: ”Mr. Trudeau removed me from the Liberal caucus. He didn’t remove me from the Liberal party.”

It hinted at an emerging crack within the Liberal party as Trudeau tries to distance himself from the embattled upper chamber and entrench a position between the NDP and Conservatives on the future of the Senate."

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/...116/story.html

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

When dealing with the issue of the Senate there are 3 distinct ideas about what to do with it. The bottom line wrt what the 3 main parties want is:

NDP-Q = Abolish it, in which case any new law voted in at the House of Commons automatically becomes law. Pretty good for majority governments I guess.

I'm not sure why the NDP-Q wants this because they'll never have a majority government. The constitution would need to be re-written so my feeling is that is the ultimate objective.....to appease the separatists in QC.

Conservative = Make Senators elected officials and the citizens of Canada vote for candidates based on their merits.

Liberal = Form a committee that will select who the best individuals are for the citizen of Canada. Afterall, we can't be trusted to know what's best for us. And of course, the Liberals would hold the majority vote on the committee.

So, what's your preference?

If you have an XParty majority in the house...and an XParty majority in the senate....what is the point?? Elected or appointed...what is the difference? Then you could end up with a senate that votes down anything the majority party elected puts forward...what a silly system.

[Kanonfodder]

This made me laugh

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews...30-102500.html

[hal53]

Originally Posted by Kanonfodder

This made me laugh

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews...30-102500.html

What a moron he is.....

[Unregistered user]

Politicians can make all the laws they want and bark about our wonderful democracy, but laws are not passed without the approval of unelected judges. Thank you mr. turdo sr.

[hal53]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

Politicians can make all the laws they want and bark about our wonderful democracy, but laws are not passed without the approval of unelected judges. Thank you mr. turdo sr.

what does a Judge have to do with it, other than in the court room?

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

Politicians can make all the laws they want and bark about our wonderful democracy, but laws are not passed without the approval of unelected judges. Thank you mr. turdo sr.

That's the way our country has worked for 140 years.

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

Politicians can make all the laws they want and bark about our wonderful democracy, but laws are not passed without the approval of unelected judges. Thank you mr. turdo sr.

I would say not enforceable....there are a lot of rulings these days that instruct the government to re-write their legislation because it is unconstitutional, or in some cases outright illegal.....

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by hal53

what does a Judge have to do with it, other than in the court room?

Judges rule as to whether a new law is constitutional or not.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

Judges rule as to whether a new law is constitutional or not.

Who would you like to rule a politician ?

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

Judges rule as to whether a new law is constitutional or not.

Well someone has to since the politicians do not seem to have got past page one of the darn thing....let alone read it.

[CanuckShooter]

Has there ever been a thread about Harper that ran this many pages of posts??? Once Quebec goes back to the Liberals we will have lots of chances to criticize Justin Trudeau.

[hal53]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

Has there ever been a thread about Harper that ran this many pages of posts??? Once Quebec goes back to the Liberals we will have lots of chances to criticize Justin Trudeau.

hmmmm...thought the Conservatives proved the pundits wrong last time about not winning a majority without carrying Quebec?????

[JohninAB]

Trudeau's senate move is as weak as Harper's gun registry move. But the are very weak and accomplish nothing.

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by ali#1

That's the way our country has worked for 140 years.

No, just since 1982.

[greylynx]

Originally Posted by Kanonfodder

This made me laugh

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews...30-102500.html

By golly those darn rascals at Sun News,

I bet that news clip made all you liberals on this thread and this forum crawl under your beds.

Sun News. One bunch of bad kittys.

[CanuckShooter]

I think one reform that makes sense is to vote for our Prime Minister....we should have all the leaders names on the ballot and vote for MP and Prime Minister on elections day.

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by hal53

hmmmm...thought the Conservatives proved the pundits wrong last time about not winning a majority without carrying Quebec?????

Your right again hal53...I looked it up.

[From The Hip]

This thread/topic has gotten pretty weak...as weak as mother Theresa on her deathbed.

It has ranged from rantings about the policy decisions of Mulrooney and the deceaced Trudeau....with lots of fails listed for both as well as latter PM's or wannabee PM's and Ignatieff comes right to mind.I cant fathom how gun control or a gun registry got stitched into the discussion but I guess the ultra paranoid people are democratically allowed to vent and spew and be upset in general so as to be fair to them.

Long story short is that by making the Liberal Senators "independant" is essentially meaningless....they will vote the same regardless....they will show up for work and get paid BUT as "independant" Senators they wont get get paid for the extras and they will bitch and complain about it.

All told it is political grandstanding and a lot of snake oil being pandered to the electorate.

FTH

[greylynx]

Originally Posted by From The Hip

This thread/topic has gotten pretty weak...as weak as mother Theresa on her deathbed.

It has ranged from rantings about the policy decisions of Mulrooney and the deceaced Trudeau....with lots of fails listed for both as well as latter PM's or wannabee PM's and Ignatieff comes right to mind.I cant fathom how gun control or a gun registry got stitched into the discussion but I guess the ultra paranoid people are democratically allowed to vent and spew and be upset in general so as to be fair to them.

Long story short is that by making the Liberal Senators "independant" is essentially meaningless....they will vote the same regardless....they will show up for work and get paid BUT as "independant" Senators they wont get get paid for the extras and they will bitch and complain about it.

All told it is political grandstanding and a lot of snake oil being pandered to the electorate.

FTH

So why did you even make the effort to post?

[From The Hip]

Originally Posted by greylynx

So why did you even make the effort to post?

why did you make the effort to respond to my post?

Cripes I would love to have you betting into me on a 1-2 no limit table when I got dealt pocket aces.

FTH

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

No, just since 1982.

So your saying before 1982 we didn't go to courts and judges to decide law ?.

[Unregistered user]

Laws were debated and passed in Parliament by elected members. By definition democracy is mob rule, we have a binding charter and constitution that puts limits on what the people want.

[CanuckShooter]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

Laws were debated and passed in Parliament by elected members. By definition democracy is mob rule, we have a binding charter and constitution that puts limits on what the people want.

The Constitution isn't black and white, it is merely a guideline and the finer points and definitions are established via the courts.

[ali#1]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

Laws were debated and passed in Parliament by elected members. By definition democracy is mob rule, we have a binding charter and constitution that puts limits on what the people want.

So the government of the day could say make a law that police could search you and seize your property and a court couldn't reverse it ? I say good thing we don't live like that anymore if that's true.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by JohninAB

Trudeau's senate move is as weak as Harper's gun registry move. But the are very weak and accomplish nothing.

I have purchased 5 rifles since the registry ended, and acquired 8 others, making 13 rifles and counting in my gun room that are not registered. And if I say the other ones were sold, then I bought them back again, then they too would be unregistered.

So getting rid of the LGR was a welcome change.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by CanuckShooter

The Constitution isn't black and white, it is merely a guideline and the finer points and definitions are established via the courts.

And the courts often interpret or ignore the constitution as they see fit.

Just look at how the courts interpret divorce and custody laws. We are all supposed to be equal before the courts, but 90% of custody cases end up with women being the custodial parent. Can't do that if they followed the constitution.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by rwm1273

And the courts often interpret or ignore the constitution as they see fit.

Just look at how the courts interpret divorce and custody laws. We are all supposed to be equal before the courts, but 90% of custody cases end up with women being the custodial parent. Can't do that if they followed the constitution.

part of the problem that you might be having with this is that you see custody as favouring one parent over another while in reality... the courts are supposed to be favouring the children and the parents rights take a back seat.

I know I know... it doesn't always work out in the best interest of the kids but that is how it is looked at.

The other thing with rights between people is that it is a balancing act... one persons rights cannot be allowed to unfairly infringe upon anothers.
The rsult is that often someone ends up feeling slighted and sometimes boith parities feel that way.

Far from perfect but.... its not as simple as favouring women over men although its is hard to remember that sometimes in the face of how often the kids go to mom instead of dad.
Even when mom is a no good...you know what.

[rwm1273]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

part of the problem that you might be having with this is that you see custody as favouring one parent over another while in reality... the courts are supposed to be favouring the children and the parents rights take a back seat.

I know I know... it doesn't always work out in the best interest of the kids but that is how it is looked at.

The other thing with rights between people is that it is a balancing act... one persons rights cannot be allowed to unfairly infringe upon anothers.
The rsult is that often someone ends up feeling slighted and sometimes boith parities feel that way.

Far from perfect but.... its not as simple as favouring women over men although its is hard to remember that sometimes in the face of how often the kids go to mom instead of dad.
Even when mom is a no good...you know what.

Claiming "Best interest of the child" is only hot air. It really is not about what is best for the kids in courts. It is what is best for lawyers, and then moms get custody by default, because it ensures a fight for the kids. The stats on custody divisions don't lie. If it was truly about the best interest of the kids, then we would have a rebuttable presumption of equal shared parenting. Children love and are entitled to have a relationship with both parents.

There is a new movie out called "Divorce Corp" and it is all about the divorce industry, and who profits from the misery of parents fighting for custody.