Fossil Fuels are a Hell of a Lot More Sustainable Than Wind and Solar

[Anonymous]

Justine will appeal it and win. The Canadian Supreme Court is packed with prog scum.

[cc]

The Canadian Supreme Court is packed with prog scum.

That is quite true



The deck is loaded

[Anonymous]

The Canadian Supreme Court is packed with prog scum.

That is quite true



The deck is loaded

A few people on FB were posting thumbs up when I reminded them this is far from over. Remember, the Alberta Supreme Court ruled Justine's carbon tax wasn't constitutional because it stepped on provincial toes. The federal court overruled it.

[Anonymous]

Justine will appeal it and win. The Canadian Supreme Court is packed with prog scum.

You might be right Herman.

[Anonymous]

The Canadian Supreme Court is packed with prog scum.

That is quite true



The deck is loaded

A few people on FB were posting thumbs up when I reminded them this is far from over. Remember, the Alberta Supreme Court ruled Justine's carbon tax wasn't constitutional because it stepped on provincial toes. The federal court overruled it.

It was a 4-1 majority decision. The carbon tax decison in Alberta was 3-2. This decison has a more solid provincial constitutional rights. Trudeau is going to try, but he may not get his way on Bill C-69.

[cc]

It states .. "a majority opinion from three of five justices, with an additional judge signing off on that opinion."



Not sure if "signing off on it" officially makes it 4 - 1 ?? Not sure how it works, but 4th sounds like reluctant approval ????



Anyone know how that works?

[Anonymous]

It states .. "a majority opinion from three of five justices, with an additional judge signing off on that opinion."



Not sure if "signing off on it" officially makes it 4 - 1 ?? Not sure how it works, but 4th sounds like reluctant approval ????



Anyone know how that works?

No, but it seems he or she agreed with the opinion.

[Anonymous]

The Canadian Supreme Court is packed with prog scum.

That is quite true



The deck is loaded

A few people on FB were posting thumbs up when I reminded them this is far from over. Remember, the Alberta Supreme Court ruled Justine's carbon tax wasn't constitutional because it stepped on provincial toes. The federal court overruled it.

It's not a victory yet.

[cc]

Right. This just got them into the final round with a c/w stacked deck

[Anonymous]

Right. This just got them into the final round with a c/w stacked deck

As Herman said, it happened with the provincial carbon tax challenge.

[Anonymous]

It states .. "a majority opinion from three of five justices, with an additional judge signing off on that opinion."



Not sure if "signing off on it" officially makes it 4 - 1 ?? Not sure how it works, but 4th sounds like reluctant approval ????



Anyone know how that works?

The judge that signed off disagreed with the other three on one section. But, the main takeaway from the four judges is that it infringed on provincial jurisdiction.

[cc]

It states .. "a majority opinion from three of five justices, with an additional judge signing off on that opinion."



Not sure if "signing off on it" officially makes it 4 - 1 ?? Not sure how it works, but 4th sounds like reluctant approval ????



Anyone know how that works?

The judge that signed off disagreed with the other three on one section. But, the main takeaway from the four judges is that it infringed on provincial jurisdiction.

Thanks

[Anonymous]

It states .. "a majority opinion from three of five justices, with an additional judge signing off on that opinion."



Not sure if "signing off on it" officially makes it 4 - 1 ?? Not sure how it works, but 4th sounds like reluctant approval ????



Anyone know how that works?

The judge that signed off disagreed with the other three on one section. But, the main takeaway from the four judges is that it infringed on provincial jurisdiction.

Thanks

I am not as pessimistic as say Herman. Bill C-69 is federal overreach.

[cc]

I'm in the middle ... although wary that  the Ottawa deck in quite loaded and that loading can and may well be employed

[Anonymous]

It states .. "a majority opinion from three of five justices, with an additional judge signing off on that opinion."



Not sure if "signing off on it" officially makes it 4 - 1 ?? Not sure how it works, but 4th sounds like reluctant approval ????



Anyone know how that works?

The judge that signed off disagreed with the other three on one section. But, the main takeaway from the four judges is that it infringed on provincial jurisdiction.

Thanks

Bill C-69 is federal overreach.

So, was the carbon tax because it affected how provinces can developn their economies.