Actually, judges aren't just employees of the government and these judges aren't responsible to those who were monitoring them. The judicary is an independent arm of government, not just another department.
The AO monitoring these judges is like the FBI monitoring a cabinet official. Both cabinet officials and federal judges are responsible to only two groups - their own (judges and executives senior to themselves) and the Senate, not to other governmental organizations.
If anything, that's what has these judges tied up in a knot.
Re:Now THIS is a cool case
on
Case Tweaking
·
· Score: 1
That case is missing what led these guys to do this in the first place - HANDLES!
Oh, you don't want to rely on the Canadian constitution to stop a Canadian DMCA. The constitution up here is so vague and our judges are so erratic in its interperation, its pretty unreliable.
Three cases in point. One, we have an election "gag" laws that limits 3rd party spending during elections to $1000. How's that for campaign finance reform? A judge during the last election refused to suspend the law.
Two, the Quebec government used something called a "not-withstanding" clause in the constitution to basically ignore the Canadian Supreme Court and continue to violate free-speech with their language laws. Not that governments do this very often but they rarely need to with our courts.
Third, and most damning, in a court decision last year our supreme court made the statement that free speech in not an inviolate right in Canada and that other government may supress it for the common good.
In Canada, we give our government emmense power and trust them not to abuse it. Generally, I think they do a pretty good job but they haven't trampled my rights yet.
Actually, the Liberals have had a majority government for more than 10 years now and can completely override the oppostion any time they want, even if the opposition did unite (which they occasionally do). When we elect a majority government (more than 1/2 the seats in the House of Commons), we elect a dictorship.
Since Jean basically controls the executive, legislative and judicary (he appoints all the Supreme Court judges), he is essentially dictator. And, although he is relatively benevolent, his will is law. So any laws inacted in Canada are because some group convinced Jean of its importance. That group can be anything from a business, to another country, to a social rights group; there's simply no telling.
And I think John Nunziatta is still an independent, sitting MP.
Absolutely true from a philosophical point of view but we have to live in this world, not merely debate it. Philosophically speaking, I could argue that I have the right to hunt down and eat my neighbors. The only reason society doesn't tolerate this is because we have defined this activity as morally wrong or even evil. Evil may not exist in a fairy tale sense but it certainly exists in the context of our society's moral.
I may not share or even follow every single caveat of that code but I certainly appreciate the stability and security it offers me. I'm pretty certain, however, I wouldn't want to live in the world you would seem to prefer.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, judges aren't just employees of the government and these judges aren't responsible to those who were monitoring them. The judicary is an independent arm of government, not just another department. The AO monitoring these judges is like the FBI monitoring a cabinet official. Both cabinet officials and federal judges are responsible to only two groups - their own (judges and executives senior to themselves) and the Senate, not to other governmental organizations. If anything, that's what has these judges tied up in a knot.
That case is missing what led these guys to do this in the first place - HANDLES!
Oh, you don't want to rely on the Canadian constitution to stop a Canadian DMCA. The constitution up here is so vague and our judges are so erratic in its interperation, its pretty unreliable. Three cases in point. One, we have an election "gag" laws that limits 3rd party spending during elections to $1000. How's that for campaign finance reform? A judge during the last election refused to suspend the law. Two, the Quebec government used something called a "not-withstanding" clause in the constitution to basically ignore the Canadian Supreme Court and continue to violate free-speech with their language laws. Not that governments do this very often but they rarely need to with our courts. Third, and most damning, in a court decision last year our supreme court made the statement that free speech in not an inviolate right in Canada and that other government may supress it for the common good. In Canada, we give our government emmense power and trust them not to abuse it. Generally, I think they do a pretty good job but they haven't trampled my rights yet.
Actually, the Liberals have had a majority government for more than 10 years now and can completely override the oppostion any time they want, even if the opposition did unite (which they occasionally do). When we elect a majority government (more than 1/2 the seats in the House of Commons), we elect a dictorship. Since Jean basically controls the executive, legislative and judicary (he appoints all the Supreme Court judges), he is essentially dictator. And, although he is relatively benevolent, his will is law. So any laws inacted in Canada are because some group convinced Jean of its importance. That group can be anything from a business, to another country, to a social rights group; there's simply no telling. And I think John Nunziatta is still an independent, sitting MP.
Absolutely true from a philosophical point of view but we have to live in this world, not merely debate it. Philosophically speaking, I could argue that I have the right to hunt down and eat my neighbors. The only reason society doesn't tolerate this is because we have defined this activity as morally wrong or even evil. Evil may not exist in a fairy tale sense but it certainly exists in the context of our society's moral. I may not share or even follow every single caveat of that code but I certainly appreciate the stability and security it offers me. I'm pretty certain, however, I wouldn't want to live in the world you would seem to prefer.