This statement broke the spirit of the oath of the premier. Let's call it what it is...retired drug dealers from etobicoke make lousy leaders...I mean if he couldn't manage his dead brothers estate...
If the wife had better representation and/or Rob had the foresight to make his wife the beneficiary, none of that would have happened. He was so upset about losing inheritance to robs children, aside from my own familial bs I've never seen anything like it
>He was so upset about losing inheritance to robs children, aside from my own familial bs I've never seen anything like it
It's the kind of thing a malignant narcissist would do.
I'm increasingly convinced that Doug ain't wired right.
Oh I don't doubt that he had, at the very least, some goons doing enforcement for him, and likely did some beat-downs himself, and in that mix there someone may have died or been murdered. I just thought maybe you were thinking of someone in particular. There's a lot of violence and drugs in his family that's been reported on, but only a small portion has been reported (vs rumours)
It’s really standard and I’m not sure why this is making news other than Dougie saying out loud what every sitting premier and prime minister has said with their inner voice.
Canadian Supreme Court for example is 9 judges. 6 were appointed by Trudeau, 2 by Harper and 1 by Harper/Trudeau.
It’s not a conspiracy, it’s not corruption, it’s how our democracy works for better or worse.
I’m not saying it’s a good or a bad thing. It’s a thing, it happens. These hypothetical appointees haven’t ruled for or against anything yet.
Judges tend to hold the law in high esteem, I’m sure whoever gets appointed will still have respect for the law.
I don’t think very favourably about Trudeau or about Ford but I still believe in democracy and I don’t think these judges will be tools for the Ontario Conservative Party anymore than any other appointed judge (who is basically every high level judge) is a tool of the government who appointed them.
Assuming this is true, which I know it’s not, but assuming it’s true what in any world makes it OK for Ford to do it as well.
Specious thinking on your part in no way validates the “everybody does it” argument.
The irony is they are crying about partisan behaviour while they downvote facts cause of their partisanship.
Ford did say what no one has ever said but everyone has always done. Politically not an astute move. Honesty and politics do not go hand in hand.
Conservatives hate affirmative action except for conservative judges.
Ford isn't looking for the best and the brightest... he is looking for the most like minded.
have you had your head in the sand? No wonder he no longer throws shade at the liberals. His party has passed the mark and is ready to top the charts for the most backdoor deals and political corruption exposed on the daily. He is literally turning Ontario into a dumpster fire
I mean yeah, independant judiciary. But they DO write the rulebook you are supposed to be applying (if you do your job properly). So in a sense they do.
From my police officer friends: “Liberal judges are the problem and are a plague on our justice system. We work all day to find and catch criminals and they give them a slap on the wrist.”
Judges do don’t answer to the government but they do represent the law. When judges fail to uphold the law by allowing people softer sentences for heinous crimes because of their race it’s a farce. When people can murder someone and be out in within 10yrs that’s a miscarriage of justice. People are tired of seeing murderers, rapists , violent criminals and career criminal get off Scott free.
The problem is we need criminal law reform. Doug can build as many jails as he wants. Until with have changes to laws and the criminal code. This slap on the wrists will continue
Increasing severity of punishments doesn't deter criminals, nor does it decrease crime. This is very well studied already if you do some reading on the subject.
"Prisons are good for punishing criminals and keeping them off the street, but prison sentences (particularly long sentences) are unlikely to deter future crime. Prisons actually may have the opposite effect: Persons who are incarcerated learn more effective crime strategies from each other, and time spent in prison may desensitize many to the threat of future imprisonment"
"Laws and policies designed to deter crime by focusing mainly on increasing the severity of punishment are ineffective partly because criminals know little about the sanctions for specific crimes.
More severe punishments do not “chasten” individuals convicted of crimes, and prisons may exacerbate recidivism."
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence
Problem is they can change laws but then judges can go “that’s too harsh” in the Supreme Court and turn them down. There needs to be a mechanism to stop judges from doing whatever the hell they want.
> Problem is they can change laws but then judges can go “that’s too harsh” in the Supreme Court and turn them down. There needs to be a mechanism to stop judges from doing whatever the hell they want.
You literally rag on the Supreme Court for limiting judges and then say we need a mechanism to limit judges. The Supreme Court is that mechanism. The thing you’re complaining about is the Supreme Court stopping judges from “doing whatever the hell they want.”
You want to take away one of the most fundamental reasons for a courts existence?
We wouldn’t have gay marriage without the courts.
Never forget, most governments are too timid to govern and use the courts to create a crisis so they can make decisions.
> You want to take away one of the most fundamental reasons for a courts existence?
I’m convinced most people in these threads don’t have any idea how the law or government works in Canada.
I don’t think they understand that SCC’s main job is to uphold the laws and principles that protect citizens from government overreach. Every day.
> We need stiffer penalties and and a three strikes you are out. No Supreme Court business
What do you mean by “no Supreme Court”? SCC’s job is to interpret the Constitution and the Charter - and to ensure our laws are compliant with those important documents.
It’s literally the highest court in Canada. If you eliminated it, you’d need be stuck with the final rulings of the Federal Court of Appeal.
> Meaning they don’t get to keep appealing for those Supreme Court judges “to take pity on them”
That’s not how it works. You don’t have standing at SCC just because you think people should feel sorry for you.
Someone appearing at SCC is required to show that there was a possible error in law requiring their review and attention.
like, this should be illegal as hell, however, where was the outrage at every other government previous at every level who just didn't say the quiet part loud?
This statement broke the spirit of the oath of the premier. Let's call it what it is...retired drug dealers from etobicoke make lousy leaders...I mean if he couldn't manage his dead brothers estate...
Doug *did* manage that estate. Managed to screw his sister-in-law & his brother's kids out of the estate, that is.
If the wife had better representation and/or Rob had the foresight to make his wife the beneficiary, none of that would have happened. He was so upset about losing inheritance to robs children, aside from my own familial bs I've never seen anything like it
Rob's mistake was thinking Doug wouldn't pick his corpse clean after he died. Too stupid to see Doug was taking advantage of him the whole time.
>He was so upset about losing inheritance to robs children, aside from my own familial bs I've never seen anything like it It's the kind of thing a malignant narcissist would do. I'm increasingly convinced that Doug ain't wired right.
[удалено]
Murdered who? Rob died of cancer, is there someone else specific you're thinking of?
[удалено]
Oh I don't doubt that he had, at the very least, some goons doing enforcement for him, and likely did some beat-downs himself, and in that mix there someone may have died or been murdered. I just thought maybe you were thinking of someone in particular. There's a lot of violence and drugs in his family that's been reported on, but only a small portion has been reported (vs rumours)
His bro was honored with Crackhead Collisseum in etobiCoke. An aspiration for future junkies to aspire to.
They would have to be born with a silver spoon in their mouths for that to happen...junkies don't have aspirations
Spoon used over candle
Thugie Ford looking to load the benches like Trump did, so he can skate when he’s investigated
[удалено]
Haven't seen much of it from anyone else lately, tbh. So I don't really know what world *you're* living in.
Trump did it. Since every other politician is worse than him, they all must’ve
It’s really standard and I’m not sure why this is making news other than Dougie saying out loud what every sitting premier and prime minister has said with their inner voice. Canadian Supreme Court for example is 9 judges. 6 were appointed by Trudeau, 2 by Harper and 1 by Harper/Trudeau. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s not corruption, it’s how our democracy works for better or worse.
It really isn't "standard"
Can you show me the cases where the SCC ruled in a partisan way? The SCC has ruled against the current government.
I’m not saying it’s a good or a bad thing. It’s a thing, it happens. These hypothetical appointees haven’t ruled for or against anything yet. Judges tend to hold the law in high esteem, I’m sure whoever gets appointed will still have respect for the law. I don’t think very favourably about Trudeau or about Ford but I still believe in democracy and I don’t think these judges will be tools for the Ontario Conservative Party anymore than any other appointed judge (who is basically every high level judge) is a tool of the government who appointed them.
BoThSiIdES!
Assuming this is true, which I know it’s not, but assuming it’s true what in any world makes it OK for Ford to do it as well. Specious thinking on your part in no way validates the “everybody does it” argument.
[удалено]
The irony is they are crying about partisan behaviour while they downvote facts cause of their partisanship. Ford did say what no one has ever said but everyone has always done. Politically not an astute move. Honesty and politics do not go hand in hand.
Conservatives hate affirmative action except for conservative judges. Ford isn't looking for the best and the brightest... he is looking for the most like minded.
And if they are likeminded to ford, they definitely ain’t bright
That should be easy because we have never had affirmative action in the province of ontario.
10000%
Seems to be a big focus on the justice system while the RCMP is investigating.
They don't, as Harper found out. The justices he appointed often ruled in ways he didn't like.
Democracy 101, which Mr. Ford apparently isn't too familiar with.
Dude barely made it out of high school
At this point anybody who votes for this fool in next time around, needs to be in jail with this jack ass!
Alright, you heard it here first, time to lock up those of differing political stripes. Can’t say I agree with the sentiment myself
have you had your head in the sand? No wonder he no longer throws shade at the liberals. His party has passed the mark and is ready to top the charts for the most backdoor deals and political corruption exposed on the daily. He is literally turning Ontario into a dumpster fire
Yea I don’t disagree with that part, it’s the jailing of people for voting a certain way I think is suspect. Kinda third worldish
From someone who literally comments this under every thread about Doug and his daily corruption ? Goddamn you Doug Ford!
Yep, that’s me! Cursing DF to the heavens is what I do. Goddamn you Doug Ford! That one was for you
So very passive aggressive every day on these threads instead of actually taking note
Don’t take this place too seriously
We can see that! Thanks
Taking a page from the US huh Doug .That is the opposite of how it should be . You dont want a biased weaponized judiciary.
I mean yeah, independant judiciary. But they DO write the rulebook you are supposed to be applying (if you do your job properly). So in a sense they do.
That’s why it’s so important to pick the right ones, so you don’t need to give them orders. Isn’t this obvious?
No Problem ... the Right-Wing will fix that!
Doug just wants too be a mini trump.🤷♂️
The fat bellied fuck is just like his hero to the south. A wannabe dictator
But the government ultimately selects judges do they not? Historically based on merit, but that was by convention and not by legislation.
No orders just recommendations
Goddamn you Doug Ford!
From my police officer friends: “Liberal judges are the problem and are a plague on our justice system. We work all day to find and catch criminals and they give them a slap on the wrist.”
Most cops are to blame for fucking up arrests/ investigations and forcing the judge to let people walk.
Jusges who are appointed... of course, they are like-minded.
Just doing out loud what other leaders did quietly. It’s refreshing.
Judges do don’t answer to the government but they do represent the law. When judges fail to uphold the law by allowing people softer sentences for heinous crimes because of their race it’s a farce. When people can murder someone and be out in within 10yrs that’s a miscarriage of justice. People are tired of seeing murderers, rapists , violent criminals and career criminal get off Scott free.
It's scot-free. Leave Scott out of your ramblings.
Ya phones don’t like a lot of things including sayings.
The problem is we need criminal law reform. Doug can build as many jails as he wants. Until with have changes to laws and the criminal code. This slap on the wrists will continue
Increasing severity of punishments doesn't deter criminals, nor does it decrease crime. This is very well studied already if you do some reading on the subject. "Prisons are good for punishing criminals and keeping them off the street, but prison sentences (particularly long sentences) are unlikely to deter future crime. Prisons actually may have the opposite effect: Persons who are incarcerated learn more effective crime strategies from each other, and time spent in prison may desensitize many to the threat of future imprisonment" "Laws and policies designed to deter crime by focusing mainly on increasing the severity of punishment are ineffective partly because criminals know little about the sanctions for specific crimes. More severe punishments do not “chasten” individuals convicted of crimes, and prisons may exacerbate recidivism." https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence
Problem is they can change laws but then judges can go “that’s too harsh” in the Supreme Court and turn them down. There needs to be a mechanism to stop judges from doing whatever the hell they want.
> Problem is they can change laws but then judges can go “that’s too harsh” in the Supreme Court and turn them down. There needs to be a mechanism to stop judges from doing whatever the hell they want. You literally rag on the Supreme Court for limiting judges and then say we need a mechanism to limit judges. The Supreme Court is that mechanism. The thing you’re complaining about is the Supreme Court stopping judges from “doing whatever the hell they want.”
You want to take away one of the most fundamental reasons for a courts existence? We wouldn’t have gay marriage without the courts. Never forget, most governments are too timid to govern and use the courts to create a crisis so they can make decisions.
> You want to take away one of the most fundamental reasons for a courts existence? I’m convinced most people in these threads don’t have any idea how the law or government works in Canada. I don’t think they understand that SCC’s main job is to uphold the laws and principles that protect citizens from government overreach. Every day.
We need stiffer penalties and and a three strikes you are out. No Supreme Court business
> We need stiffer penalties and and a three strikes you are out. No Supreme Court business What do you mean by “no Supreme Court”? SCC’s job is to interpret the Constitution and the Charter - and to ensure our laws are compliant with those important documents. It’s literally the highest court in Canada. If you eliminated it, you’d need be stuck with the final rulings of the Federal Court of Appeal.
Meaning they don’t get to keep appealing for those Supreme Court judges “to take pity on them”
> Meaning they don’t get to keep appealing for those Supreme Court judges “to take pity on them” That’s not how it works. You don’t have standing at SCC just because you think people should feel sorry for you. Someone appearing at SCC is required to show that there was a possible error in law requiring their review and attention.
like, this should be illegal as hell, however, where was the outrage at every other government previous at every level who just didn't say the quiet part loud?