Okay. How can it be that the person who drafted legislation is now able to rule on its constitutionality?
Thta's a little Bush-esque, really.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The political and other musings of two Canadians. One in Toronto at the Centre of the Universe, and the other in Los Angeles, at the, 'ahem', Center of the Universe. When we're not tag-teaming, we're attacking from both ends.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(149)
-
▼
March
(17)
- God really isn't watching
- Why
- Why do we care??
- Freedom of religion for Pastafarians
- Sanjaya Must Be Stopped
- Messages
- Reason number 232 why we love having a GG
- The Fifth Amendment? You must be kidding.
- PLQ and the Tories
- Well, Duh
- How on earth is this constitutional?
- Abortion Stupidity
- Thank god for a boring culture
- More God and Gays
- God and Gays
- Why do straights hate the gays?
- Jean in Afghanistan
-
▼
March
(17)
Political Sites
- A Lie A Day
- Adam Radwanski
- Andrew Coyne
- Andrew Sullivan
- Canadian Cynic
- Chantal Hebert
- Flying Spaghetti Monsterism
- Google News
- Great Canadian Speeches
- Hairy Fish Nuts
- Inkless Wells (Paul Wells)
- Inside the Queensway (Kady O'Malley)
- Maisonneuve MediaScout
- Mike's Personalized Google News
- Red Tory
- Seething Mom
- Slate
- The Commons (Aaron Wherry)
- Warren Kinsella
- Wikipedia
1 comment:
Well it might be a problem if he was the final word on the matter, but any decision he makes on the constitutionality of the law is appealable to the Federal Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court of Canada so there are plenty of checks in place. Even if he were on the SCC he would be only one of nine.
Post a Comment