Thursday, July 12, 2012

What Can the Supreme Court Possibly be Debating Over??


Seriously! Ted Opitz's case is essentially that just because "clerical errors" mean that 79 voters are unaccounted for (with Elections Canada now claiming at the last minute that they can maybe account for 44 of them) in an election won by 26 votes, that this is no reason to invalidate his election.

What possible merit is there in such a brain-dead argument? From now on, in Canadian elections, harpercon sleaze-bags will simply walk from polling station to polling station giving fake names to harpercon supporting polling clerks and vote early and often? And any challenges will be derided as useless expenditures and attempts to take away the people's sacred right to choose?

Are they really arguing as if that's a valid point of view???

We're getting close to a political singularity here. When infinite cynicism meets infinite gullibility.

4 comments:

Steve W said...

I'm wondering if they're going to a pull a Michaƫlle Jean and render a decision that will be designed to not upset the apple cart. Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

thwap said...

Steve W,

Me too. I meant to say that I think political considerations are having more to do with this delay than the non-existent merits of Opitz's case.

I also know that there's another apple-cart besides that of the right-wing whiners'. A lot of other people are at the boiling point with the bullshit they've been forced to endure for years.

Beijing York said...

The absurdity continues. Elections Canada has ruled that it won't investigate the foreign (US) owner of Front Porch Strategies who was caught doing some door-to-door campaigning with Fantino after receiving complaints that it violates provisions against foreign influence/participation in Canadian Elections. Their excuses: (1) difficult to investigate how much influence these actions had on voting decisions (didn't we hear that same excuse from the Harper regime from when the first reports of electoral fraud were addressed?); (2) the activity was of limited duration; and (3) the relevant information or person is not in Canada.

thwap said...

Oh yeah. We're going to have to do a thorough house-cleaning at Elections Canada.

They started to slip in my estimation when they contributed to election fraud in Haiti many years ago.