3. It’s neither inappropriate nor a surprise that the government queries every database available to it — including Liberalist or, under the previous government, CIMS — in vetting judicial candidates. It wouldn’t be “vetting” otherwise. These jobs are for life. Vetting is good.
-
-
このスレッドを表示
-
4. According to the Globe, “about 25 per cent of the 289 judges appointed or promoted ... since 2016 had donated to the Liberal Party”. That number seems very low. It suggests that the government is using the Liberal database to avoid appointing partisans, not to seek them out.
このスレッドを表示 -
5. The government also doesn’t need the governing party’s database to know who donates to whom. Elections Canada publishes that information. If the Liberals were using vetting to skew the process politically, we’d be hearing about party volunteers’ being appointed, not donors.
このスレッドを表示 -
6. The Globe story also states that nearly 70 percent percent of the current government’s judicial appointees have never donated to *any* political party. If there’s problem with that approach, it’s the apparent exclusion of good candidates who have been politically involved.
このスレッドを表示 -
7. Supporting a political party, financially or otherwise, should never be disqualifying in the judicial appointments process. Nor should it be mandatory, of course. But when we start punishing people for political engagement, we can only impoverish our politics. That’s bad.
このスレッドを表示 -
8. So, even if some of the judges whom the Liberals have appointed were former Liberal riding association presidents, campaign volunteers, Cabinet ministers, whatever — and, again, that isn’t what‘s reported — there’d be nothing wrong with that, in practice or in principle.
このスレッドを表示
会話の終了
新しい会話 -
-
-
Thanks Adam for laying out all of the relevant information. On complex issues, the media hasn't really been up to the task of succinctly reporting the core details.
-
And I think Adam is correct about vetting against Liberal lists. This govt has been reluctant to make appointments if someone has been too politically active as a Liberal (ie, the Senate, where political involvement is a negative). Lotsa Libs unhappy about it.
-
In a way, this ought to reflect well on this Liberal gov't. To be appointing without regard to party loyalties shows both a honourable distance from partisanship and also a certain risk-taking on consequences (i.e. passing bills thru Senate).
- 他1件の返信
新しい会話 -
-
-
This thread adds some valuable insights into the G&Ms incomplete item on judicial appointments. Perhaps a follow up story would be helpful for clarification and accuracy.
@globeandmail#cdnpoli -
I second that suggestion. It's a good one.
#CdnPoli -
Not holding my breath for a follow up. ICYMI, here’s some relevant facts on the actual judicial appointments process
#cdnpolihttps://twitter.com/ishat_reza/status/1121156658510606336?s=21 … -
新しい会話 -
-
-
The Harper government removed the “highly recommended” rating from the appointment process. It gave them more flexibility to appoint their friends. The Liberal Govt restored it.
-
However we are not told how many appointees are from the recommended or highly recommended category, so difficult to tell how much difference it makes
- 他1件の返信
新しい会話 -
-
-
Now it would be interesting to do the same kind of inquiry into Scheer/harper appointed judges and senators by the Globe and mail
-
Exhibits A and B: Vic Toews to the Manitoba Court of Queen's bench and the failed attempt to appoint Mark Nadon to the Supreme Court of Canada
#CDNpoli
会話の終了
新しい会話 -
読み込みに時間がかかっているようです。
Twitterの処理能力の限界を超えているか、一時的な不具合が発生しています。やりなおすか、Twitterステータスで詳細をご確認ください。

