Comments on: Origins of the Great Arizona Civil War

By: Craig O

Craig O — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:57:35 +0000

You assume our form of democracy has anything to do with qualifications. There's a reason we have a representative democracy and not a direct democracy – among other things, most people aren't qualified to decide most things (myself definitely included). Democracy gives the people control over the major, salient things about our society that form it's backbone and direction. It does not require or assume competence from the people on any specifics.

By: kcm

kcm — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:40:33 +0000

I think i'll take my chances with an unelected Judge, whose worldview may owe as much to who he played golf with, or what social networks he's a part of as how truly qualified he is.[ a risk in any case in any organised hierarchical society ] Rather than throw our selves upon the vissitudes of partisan politicking. Of course there's no reason at all the process of selecting our judiciary shouldn't be as transparent as reasonably possible. I understand the provinces do a better job in this regard than the feds.

By: tobyornottoby

tobyornottoby — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:28:34 +0000

And what about the other bailiff who did the photocopying? Shouldn't he be called in front of the judge and ordered to … um apologize if the sherrif lets him?

By: Jack Mitchell

Jack Mitchell — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:56:09 +0000

@Olaf. I don't see why this need be determined theoretically. Theoretically, an electorate might or might not be qualified to choose sheriffs and judges. Apparently the people of Arizona are not.

Re: the architecture analogy, I think it's like saying that patrons / backers / investors are qualified to choose which of the ten finalists they want as architect, but they are not qualified to oversee the blueprints and construction.

By: kcm

kcm — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:37:59 +0000

At this moment the King, who had been for some time busily writing in his note-book, cackled out `Silence!' and read out from his book, `Rule Forty-two. All persons more than a mile high to leave the court.'

Everybody looked at Alice.

`I'm not a mile high,' said Alice.

`You are,' said the King.

`Nearly two miles high,' added the Queen.

`Well, I shan't go, at any rate,' said Alice: `besides, that's not a regular rule: you invented it just now.'

`It's the oldest rule in the book,' said the King.

`Then it ought to be Number One,' said Alice.

The King turned pale, and shut his note-book hastily. `Consider your verdict,' he said to the jury, in a low, trembling voice

By: Olaf

Olaf — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:49:32 +0000

Not to unreasonably extrapolate from Jack's statement, but if I had to unreasonably extrapolate from Jack's statement (twist my arm!), I've always wondered how people can suggest that democracy is a beneficial when it comes to those who write our laws, and appoint our judges, but not with regards to the judges themselves. So we're qualified to decide who can lay the ground rules for judgments, and qualified to decide who should decide who should interpret those ground rules, but not qualified to decide who should interpret those rules directly? Isn't that like saying someone is qualified to appoint an architect, but not qualified to choose the interior designer? (Spoiler alert: no, it's nothing like that).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:36:04 +0000

That's the only explanation I can see for having accepted a defence as lame as Stoddard presented.

By: RayK

RayK — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:35:03 +0000

Indeed, one assume that the judge must be afraid of crossing the popular" demogogic sheriff lest she endanger her own re-election.

By: tobyornottoby

tobyornottoby — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:28:34 +0000

And what about the other bailiff who did the photocopying? Shouldn't he be called in front of the judge and ordered to … um apologize if the sherrif lets him?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:52:29 +0000

Same here. When the authoritarians get up to their squalid little tricks, the first thing I think of is the Harperites.

By: s_c_f

s_c_f — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:35:18 +0000

The judge appears to be just as incompetent as the bailiffs. Her statement that bailiffs are responsible for security, was insulting. Her failure to remain in control of the courtroom should result in consequences.

This is astounding.

By: s_c_f

s_c_f — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:33:20 +0000

I agree, talk about a 'one-track mind'. Therapy and medication may be necessary for treatment of Connors.

By: Jack Mitchell

Jack Mitchell — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:30:37 +0000

You nailed it. This is what happens when democracy runs amok.

By: Colin

Colin — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:28:30 +0000

Great moments in elected judging: cross the popular sheriff at your own peril.

By: jolyon

jolyon — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:09:49 +0000

Those bailiffs looked fairly calm/casual with what they were doing, I am willing to bet they have rifled through confidential files before. And I don't understand why the judge only ordered the offending bailiff to apologize at press conference – which it doesn't sound like he will do – because the bailiffs behaviour threatened integrity of court.

Judge does not care if bailiffs and prosecution team are in cahoots with one another?

By: Emmett

Emmett — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:04:40 +0000

You've just won the award for greatest non sequitur in the history of the Maclean's comment board.

By: Craig O

Craig O — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:20:56 +0000

This week in actions that are obviously illegal and highly unethical…

By: James Connors

James Connors — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:57:15 +0000

Also, it seems to me this sequence of minority governments indicates that a majority of Canadians still believe the wrong person is in charge of government. That, I suspect, will be Stephen Harper's epitaph.

By: James Connors

James Connors — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:41:58 +0000

It kinda reminds me of Stephen Harper, as in; are you going to believe me, or your lying eyes.

By: madeyoulook

madeyoulook — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:00:19 +0000

Unbefreakingleavable!