I suspect the courts are concerned that in the current political climate a decision to toss the case (or to take the case at a regular timeline) is seen as being partisan. By taking the case, and taking it early, they can express and explain why it this case is horseshit. If they just dismiss, they do not have that ability.
I am convinced that if they had dismissed it outright, it would have resulted in an avalanche of accusations by right wing commentators. Poilievre would have used it to promote further victimhood, stopping just short of saying the courts are partisan (“only I can stop Trudeau and the Trudeau look alikes, even the courts are unwilling to do what is needed”).
Personally, I think it is unwise for the court to alter its approach based on public opinion. The conspiracy theorists will make outlandish claims with or without an actual opinion on prorogation. Trying to counter this is a fool’s errand.
Evan, I agree that the idea of challenging in court a prorogation is or should be a non-starter.
That doesn't mean that the applicants should be denied an opportunity to make their argument. Indeed, pretty much anyone can argue anything and this should be no different. That doesn't mean that the court has to sanction the argument.
I don't like the prorogation in this instance but that is simply my opinion. I do accept that it is/was legitimate.
On the other hand, let us consider that the courts have very, very broadly "read in" rights that are not in the Constitution and those "read in" rights are considered now to be real. Stupid, in my view. Put differently, we have a Constitution that we must work with. That Constitution has reserve rights, as you note, but the rights enumerated in the Charter are the rights we have; I absolutely oppose the expansion of "rights" by "reading in." I absolutely understand that the Constitution is forty-three years old and today's society is different than the society in 1982 but it is not THAT different.
So, my point is goose / gander: if it is good enough for the goose then it is good enough for the gander. Put rather less poetically, if you want the reserve rights interpreted strictly (and I accept that approach as you seem to) then, I argue that it follows that the "reading in" to the Charter should similarly be interpreted strictly and should not be allowed.
Or do you want your cake and eat it too? Do you want to add rights one way but not the other? I disagree with that approach. How about you, Evan?
Although I think that Trudeau's prorogation of Parliament was done for purely cynical and partisan reasons, I have to agree with this. The last thing we need right now is to transfer power from political actors to an unelected judiciary.
I hold a vivid memory of that prorogation moment in 2008, when the 3 opposition parties threatened a coalition to bring down the Conservative govt over the issue of cuts to public party funding.
My story is about hockey:
My son played on the same Peewee team as Harper's son.
Stephen was unfailingly great and generous to have around, and we became friends, despite me openly supporting another party.
Very behind-the-scenes Ottawa -- before the Age of Poilievre, we all used to respect and socialize across party lines.
Our team was playing in the championship final of the Bell Cup, a huge international minor hockey tournament hosted by Ottawa every Christmas.
At one tense moment in the final game, our coach put our three smallest players on one line (including my son!)
Parents were worried, but Harper reassured us: "You never know what can happen when the 3 shrimps are put together!"
Without thinking, I blurted out, "Yeah, sort of like the coalition."
So this is very scary, and sounds like the Federal Court is already "captured."
I wondered the same thing when the Emergency Act was questioned, so similar was it to what happened in the States regarding Jan. 6th, i.e. questioning the fact that a violent and unprecedented attempt to overthrow the government by occupying the seat of said government is absolutely ILLEGAL.
The premise of undermining the rule of law for, as you say, merely for what "should" be (or whatever, doesn't matter) IS absolutely the issue here (pathetic Andrew Coyne, too old for stupid libertarianism is he not?; no fool like an old fool), so the fact that the CPC here, and the GOP there are both openly engaging in that completely invalidates AND disqualifies the current political right wing of our respective democracies, period.
The standard role of, in our case, "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" simply CAN NOT supersede the reality that the two aforementioned parties, and they ALONE, are the source of what can rightly be called "malinformation" that now actively threatens the backbone of democracy, the sacred, hard-won rule of law.
"Big tech," the vehicle for this destruction, has also just corroborated that by overtly endorsing Trump.
I am in agreement with the thrust of your argument Evan, although I must make the correction that the 2008 controversy was not another case of the opposition putting forward a "press release" suggesting a coalition. Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, and Gilles Duceppe had all signed an accord that agreed on actual specific details on what the coalition cabinet would look like. The Governor General Michaelle Jean should have taken that document seriously and I expect that she did, even if the choice that she made in the end to grant prorogation was the inevitable and necessary outcome.
With the 2025 prorogation its legal legitimacy is helped by the fact of the NDP's record of flip-flopping on confidence under Singh, but its moral legitimacy is harmed by the fact that there is no purpose to the prorogation other than to deliberately avoid non-confidence votes.
I suspect the courts are concerned that in the current political climate a decision to toss the case (or to take the case at a regular timeline) is seen as being partisan. By taking the case, and taking it early, they can express and explain why it this case is horseshit. If they just dismiss, they do not have that ability.
I am convinced that if they had dismissed it outright, it would have resulted in an avalanche of accusations by right wing commentators. Poilievre would have used it to promote further victimhood, stopping just short of saying the courts are partisan (“only I can stop Trudeau and the Trudeau look alikes, even the courts are unwilling to do what is needed”).
Personally, I think it is unwise for the court to alter its approach based on public opinion. The conspiracy theorists will make outlandish claims with or without an actual opinion on prorogation. Trying to counter this is a fool’s errand.
Great, strong arguments. I agree that the courts should rip these idiotic arguments to shreds.
And if they do, they do. Just like they should have ripped the bail laws to shreds. Scrimshaw, insanity is thy name.
When I write « these idiotic arguments », I don’t mean Scrimshaw’s, I mean the ones made by the two people who launched this court case.
Evan, I agree that the idea of challenging in court a prorogation is or should be a non-starter.
That doesn't mean that the applicants should be denied an opportunity to make their argument. Indeed, pretty much anyone can argue anything and this should be no different. That doesn't mean that the court has to sanction the argument.
I don't like the prorogation in this instance but that is simply my opinion. I do accept that it is/was legitimate.
On the other hand, let us consider that the courts have very, very broadly "read in" rights that are not in the Constitution and those "read in" rights are considered now to be real. Stupid, in my view. Put differently, we have a Constitution that we must work with. That Constitution has reserve rights, as you note, but the rights enumerated in the Charter are the rights we have; I absolutely oppose the expansion of "rights" by "reading in." I absolutely understand that the Constitution is forty-three years old and today's society is different than the society in 1982 but it is not THAT different.
So, my point is goose / gander: if it is good enough for the goose then it is good enough for the gander. Put rather less poetically, if you want the reserve rights interpreted strictly (and I accept that approach as you seem to) then, I argue that it follows that the "reading in" to the Charter should similarly be interpreted strictly and should not be allowed.
Or do you want your cake and eat it too? Do you want to add rights one way but not the other? I disagree with that approach. How about you, Evan?
Although I think that Trudeau's prorogation of Parliament was done for purely cynical and partisan reasons, I have to agree with this. The last thing we need right now is to transfer power from political actors to an unelected judiciary.
I hold a vivid memory of that prorogation moment in 2008, when the 3 opposition parties threatened a coalition to bring down the Conservative govt over the issue of cuts to public party funding.
My story is about hockey:
My son played on the same Peewee team as Harper's son.
Stephen was unfailingly great and generous to have around, and we became friends, despite me openly supporting another party.
Very behind-the-scenes Ottawa -- before the Age of Poilievre, we all used to respect and socialize across party lines.
Our team was playing in the championship final of the Bell Cup, a huge international minor hockey tournament hosted by Ottawa every Christmas.
At one tense moment in the final game, our coach put our three smallest players on one line (including my son!)
Parents were worried, but Harper reassured us: "You never know what can happen when the 3 shrimps are put together!"
Without thinking, I blurted out, "Yeah, sort of like the coalition."
His face went from red to laughter.
So this is very scary, and sounds like the Federal Court is already "captured."
I wondered the same thing when the Emergency Act was questioned, so similar was it to what happened in the States regarding Jan. 6th, i.e. questioning the fact that a violent and unprecedented attempt to overthrow the government by occupying the seat of said government is absolutely ILLEGAL.
The premise of undermining the rule of law for, as you say, merely for what "should" be (or whatever, doesn't matter) IS absolutely the issue here (pathetic Andrew Coyne, too old for stupid libertarianism is he not?; no fool like an old fool), so the fact that the CPC here, and the GOP there are both openly engaging in that completely invalidates AND disqualifies the current political right wing of our respective democracies, period.
The standard role of, in our case, "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" simply CAN NOT supersede the reality that the two aforementioned parties, and they ALONE, are the source of what can rightly be called "malinformation" that now actively threatens the backbone of democracy, the sacred, hard-won rule of law.
"Big tech," the vehicle for this destruction, has also just corroborated that by overtly endorsing Trump.
I am in agreement with the thrust of your argument Evan, although I must make the correction that the 2008 controversy was not another case of the opposition putting forward a "press release" suggesting a coalition. Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, and Gilles Duceppe had all signed an accord that agreed on actual specific details on what the coalition cabinet would look like. The Governor General Michaelle Jean should have taken that document seriously and I expect that she did, even if the choice that she made in the end to grant prorogation was the inevitable and necessary outcome.
With the 2025 prorogation its legal legitimacy is helped by the fact of the NDP's record of flip-flopping on confidence under Singh, but its moral legitimacy is harmed by the fact that there is no purpose to the prorogation other than to deliberately avoid non-confidence votes.