Supreme Court

Saturday May 7, 2022

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday May 7, 2022

Let’s take a deep breath over Roe V. Wade

Could we all take a deep breath?

May 13, 2017

A leaked draft decision from the U.S. Supreme Court about abortion has created a bizarre political firestorm here in Canada. The most dangerous place to be these days is between a live microphone and a Canadian politician wanting to tell us how they will fight until their dying breath to protect Canadian women against the insidious evil emanating from south of the border.

Can we bring a little sanity to the situation?

First, the court has not banned abortions. A draft internal document was leaked on a case challenging abortion law which may or may not reflect the court’s final decision. If the leaked decision stands, abortion will lose its constitutional protection and individual state legislatures will be able to regulate or outlaw it. Although a dramatic change, it would not create a nationwide ban

This case has no effect on Canada where there hasn’t been an abortion law since 1988 when the Canadian Supreme Court found the existing law unconstitutional. No successive government was able to come up with a replacement and no major Canadian political party currently supports reopening the issue. Although several Conservative MPs and a second-tier leadership candidate have tried to raise restrictions, it is simply not on the political radar.

Friday May 6, 2022

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday May 6, 2022

The Supreme Court might never recover from overturning Roe v. Wade

October 23, 2020

On Monday, Politico published a draft of a Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling declaring that the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to end their pregnancies. The court later confirmed that the document, written in February, is genuine, but emphasized that it is not the court’s final word. We hope not. If the justices embrace the sweeping document, they will deal a grievous blow to freedom in the United States — and to the legitimacy of the court itself.

Such a leak from the court’s typically tight inner sanctum is itself astonishing. The court works on trust among justices and staff, so that the justices can deliberate frankly. Whether the document leaked from a conservative justice’s chambers, in an effort to lock in the support of others on the right for its far-reaching language, or from a liberal’s, in an effort to mobilize outside pressure against such a ruling, the leak represents a dire breakdown in norms and another dramatic sign of the court’s political drift.

Friday October 23, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday October 23, 2020

Pope Francis should have a talk with Amy Coney Barrett about same-sex marriage

Pope Francis’s call for civil unions for same-sex couples is a welcome departure from the Roman Catholic Church’s long reluctance to embrace everyone as children of God regardless of their sexual orientation.

September 21, 2013

The pope’s remarks in the documentary “Francesco” reverberated everywhere as a major contradiction to the Vatican’s stance that marriage is between a man and a woman.

“What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered,” the pope said in the documentary aired this week, in which he emphasized his views that gay people are children of God.

The puritans within the Catholic Church immediately asked for clarification, though Pope Francis was pretty clear that the marriage of gay people should be recognized under the law.

October 9, 2014

What Francis didn’t say is whether the Vatican will finally recognize and embrace gay people’s marriage just as it does with the union between a man and woman. That would be revolutionary.

It’s thrilling to hear the pope open his arms to everyone as children of God and lending support for same-sex couple civil unions.

It isn’t enough to settle the conflicting views of the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics who look to the Vatican for guidance over morality, which they in turn use to sponsor, promote or oppose laws governing us here on earth.   

October 3, 2013

But it is an important statement at a moment when many people in America are genuinely worried about the future of gay marriage and LGBTQ rights when the ultimate arbiter – the U.S. Supreme Court – will soon be packed with conservatives.

Those conservatives on the high court – and especially Amy Coney Barrett, the Catholic judge soon to be confirmed to the Supreme Court – should heed the pope’s advice.

After all, it’s what America wants.

Most Americans – 70% – support allowing gay and lesbian couples to marrylegally, according to the American Values Survey released this week. Twenty-eight percent oppose it.

Democrats and independents overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage, 80% to 76% respectively, while 50% of Republicans support it, the survey showed.

That tells me same-sex marriage has a good chance of remaining the law of the land. But just in case, Pope Francis should invite Amy Coney Barrett to the Vatican for a chat.

Good Catholics listen to the pope, right? (Arizona Republic)

“I wasn’t planning to feature more Pope/Civil Union cartoons, but Graeme MacKay (Hamilton Spectator)captures some relevant matters here. The obvious one is the absurd hypocrisy of accusing Democrats of bigotry for opposing Barrett’s nomination on religious grounds, given that their presidential candidate is a devout Catholic, and I did get a chuckle.”

Friday September 28, 2018

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday September 28, 2018

8 takeaways from the Brett Kavanaugh-Christine Blasey Ford hearings

The eyes of the country are on a small hearing room on Capitol Hill Thursday, where Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused him of sexually assaulting her when they were both teenagers, are testifying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Trivia from the south

I’m watching right alongside you — and the nation. The testimony so far has been gripping — and the whole hearing, featuring both Ford and Kavanaugh, will be worth watching to get a full picture.

But several moments and themes have already stood out. Below you’ll find a contemporaneous set of takeaways that I think are worth taking note of as I watch the hearings live. Again, these takeaways are in the order of the actual hearing.

1. Ford is credible

2. The manner of questioning is, um, not great

3. Grassley’s tin ear

4. Hatch’s ‘attractive’ gaffe

5. Mitchell’s swings and misses

6. The silence of Senate Republicans

7. Kavanaugh’s angry and emotional opening statement

8. No one is more outraged than Lindsey Graham

(Continued: CNN) 

 

Wednesday June 1, 2016

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator Ð Wednesday June 1, 2016 Uncertain Senate awaits Medically assisted dying bill When C-14, the Liberal government's legislation to regulate medically assisted death, passed the House at second reading four weeks ago, the vote was 235 in favour, 75 against. That vote though was likely the easiest C-14 will face. At second reading, MPs are only asked to approve a bill in principle. A member with reservations can vote in favour and hope to see the legislation amended when it goes to a House committee for further study. On Monday night, with a slightly amended bill reported back to the House, the margin of approval was more than halved, with C-14 passing by a vote of 192 to 129. A series of amendments moved in the House were defeated immediately beforehand. Just one Liberal and one New Democrat voted nay at second reading, but upon further review, and having seen what amendments the majority was willing to accept, four Liberal MPs voted against, as did all NDP MPs. Still, 19 Conservatives were willing to support the bill, and with those votes on side, C-14 still passed comfortably. That result suggests the bill will pass again at third reading, a vote that is expected to occur as early as Tuesday evening. It is at that point that the C-14's margin for passage becomes somewhat mysterious. After passing the House of Commons, C-14 will be delivered to the Senate, an upper chamber in the midst of an experiment in legislative independence. "The outcome I think is beyond my ability to predict," says Liberal Senate leader James Cowan. It is seemingly unlikely the Senate will finish with the bill by June 6, the Supreme Court's deadline for new legislation, something Health Minister Jane Philpott seemed to concede on Monday. "We are at risk of not meeting the June 6th deadline," she said. "Having said that, it is my hope that we can see this piece of legislation put into effect at the very soon as possible date.Ó

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday June 1, 2016

Uncertain Senate awaits Medically assisted dying bill

When C-14, the Liberal government’s legislation to regulate medically assisted death, passed the House at second reading four weeks ago, the vote was 235 in favour, 75 against.

That vote though was likely the easiest C-14 will face. At second reading, MPs are only asked to approve a bill in principle. A member with reservations can vote in favour and hope to see the legislation amended when it goes to a House committee for further study.

On Monday night, with a slightly amended bill reported back to the House, the margin of approval was more than halved, with C-14 passing by a vote of 192 to 129. A series of amendments moved in the House were defeated immediately beforehand.

Just one Liberal and one New Democrat voted nay at second reading, but upon further review, and having seen what amendments the majority was willing to accept, four Liberal MPs voted against, as did all NDP MPs. Still, 19 Conservatives were willing to support the bill, and with those votes on side, C-14 still passed comfortably.

That result suggests the bill will pass again at third reading, a vote that is expected to occur as early as Tuesday evening.

It is at that point that the C-14’s margin for passage becomes somewhat mysterious. After passing the House of Commons, C-14 will be delivered to the Senate, an upper chamber in the midst of an experiment in legislative independence.

“The outcome I think is beyond my ability to predict,” says Liberal Senate leader James Cowan.

It is seemingly unlikely the Senate will finish with the bill by June 6, the Supreme Court’s deadline for new legislation, something Health Minister Jane Philpott seemed to concede on Monday.

“We are at risk of not meeting the June 6th deadline,” she said. “Having said that, it is my hope that we can see this piece of legislation put into effect at the very soon as possible date.”

The potential impact of any lack of legislation is a matter of some debate, but regardless of when C-14 receives royal assent, it still remains to be seen precisely how, and in what form, it will get there. (Source: CBC News)