doctorow at June 14th, 2014 13:00 — #1
robert_c_baruch at June 14th, 2014 13:54 — #2
Can we have your Supreme Court?
Love, America (Canada's pants)
antdude at June 14th, 2014 14:28 — #3
LOL @ pants. I don't know. South America would be pants if this was based of America.
rocketpj at June 14th, 2014 14:47 — #4
Yay Supremes. I particularly love that it was Harper's appointee that wrote it, but the main point is that privacy is important.
Of course, CSIS will just ignore all of that because secret.
radioplum at June 14th, 2014 15:10 — #5
Our Supreme Court is very cool. The best opposition to the Harper govt. And our bill of rights kinda rocks. But I feel your pain, americans.
thaumatechnicia at June 15th, 2014 07:19 — #6
willondon at June 15th, 2014 11:07 — #7
Canada's lumberjack shirt, then. The Bible belt makes more sense to me now.
kimmo at June 16th, 2014 10:44 — #8
ironedithkidd at June 17th, 2014 13:15 — #9
A ruling of "unconstitutional" doesn't seem to stop legislators in the US from attempting to pass exceedingly similar laws to the ones struck down by the SCOTUS (on the state level this happens with alarming regularity). Would the situation be any different in Canada?
jardine at June 18th, 2014 18:55 — #10
As I understand it, the Canadian Supreme Court will sometimes offer an opinion on whether a law is constitutional or not before it's passed. They also will sometimes strike down an existing law and tell the government to come back with a new one within their guidelines in a certain time frame. At the moment, the government has been told to write a new law about prostitution within a year of a Supreme Court ruling on it (prostitution itself was technically legal previously, but everything surrounding it wasn't. It was illegal to solicit, to run a bawdy house, and to live off the proceeds. The Supreme Court said that's stupid so come up with a law that isn't stupid.)
doctorow at June 19th, 2014 13:00 — #11
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.