After a 2-day window of stunned silence (and scrambling like chickens on speed to come up with a statement that might help mend their tattered credibility), there's finally been a response to Justice McLachlin's drop-kick to the withered nads of the "However, Dr. McVety, whose organization launched a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council about the Chief Justice's conduct in the Morgentaler matter, said her explanation implicates her even more deeply in misconduct. "We* were quite astonished to read reports of what she had said," Dr. McVety said."We never accused her of voting. We accused her of disregarding the constitution that she is bound to serve. By expressing her approval of the process, she is expressing approval of Morgentaler's activism on abortion."
*"We" -- heh. And so what? Abortion is a legal procedure, so who cares if McLachlin approves of it or not? Well, there's an answer for that, too:
It's become abundantly clear that the religious whackjobs and crotch-sniffers are hoping for some kind of court action involving abortion in the foreseeable future, probably initiated by Bill C-484 (if it passed, which is unlikely), and are working feverishly to ensure that no womens' rights-favouring judge will screw it up for them. If they can't stack the Supreme Court with conservatives by appointment, they'll do it by attrition. That's one of the reasons this bogus complaint won't go anywhere -- if McVety was successful in having one justice removed, that would just be the beginning.
It's funny how they totally miss the underlying meaning of this whole Morgentaler thing, which is that Justice McLachlin's independence hasn't been compromised for the simple reason that abortion rights will never come before the Supreme Court again. Ever. It's already been done, and no government with an instinct of self-preservation would even think about doing it again, regardless of what some of the fundamentalist chimps in caucus might say.
"Dr. McVety said that as the chair of a committee that is instrumental in conferring honours on individuals, some of whom may represent controversial causes that could come before the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice's independence is automatically compromised." (emphasis mine)"Controversial causes that might come before the Supreme Court" -- like abortion, maybe?
It's become abundantly clear that the religious whackjobs and crotch-sniffers are hoping for some kind of court action involving abortion in the foreseeable future, probably initiated by Bill C-484 (if it passed, which is unlikely), and are working feverishly to ensure that no womens' rights-favouring judge will screw it up for them. If they can't stack the Supreme Court with conservatives by appointment, they'll do it by attrition. That's one of the reasons this bogus complaint won't go anywhere -- if McVety was successful in having one justice removed, that would just be the beginning.
It's funny how they totally miss the underlying meaning of this whole Morgentaler thing, which is that Justice McLachlin's independence hasn't been compromised for the simple reason that abortion rights will never come before the Supreme Court again. Ever. It's already been done, and no government with an instinct of self-preservation would even think about doing it again, regardless of what some of the fundamentalist chimps in caucus might say.
|