🚀 go-pugleaf

"Defender of Enormous Manhood" <Defenderofenormousmanhood@rogers.com> wrote 
in message news:1137279599.956067.113710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> No, Judges do not make law, they just ensure that existing legislation
> does not break the highest law in the land - the Constitution. If it
> does, then they have the power to strike it down.

When EXISTING law is an ass, like the stuff the LIEbrawls all to often RAM 
through Parliament, IMPARTIAL judges SHOULD strike it down. Of course if the 
assholes on the Supreme Court are dopplegangers of the asshole LIEbrawls in 
the Commons, what do you expect, other that the fucking bullshit SCOC 
decisions we have being getting?




>
> Example, a government uses legislation to execute people named Jack,
> and begins executing people named Jack, legally. Then it goes to the
> supreme court and they determine that this law conflicts with rights
> imposed under the charter of rights, so they strike the law down, and
> they can't execute people named Jack anymore.
>
> However if the constitution said Jacks are excluded, they could still
> kill you, because there is nothing the almighty, un-elected  judges
> could do to over-ride the constitution.
>
> However there is something any government can do to overide the
> constitution, invoke the notwithstanding clause. So as you see the
> ultimate power is not with the courts, nor the constitution, but with
> any immoral or corrupt government of the day.
>
> This is why we need to ammend the constitution so it can't be perverted
> by a seasonal government. It's about the only good idea Martin has had
> all campaign.
> And it may just be the hardest part to change, as if you already have
> power, are you going to allow a situation where a constitution could
> overide your power?
>