Jean Chretien: Still smarting from Judge Gomery's harsh rulings against him as well as other Liberals/Liberal cronies, attacks the Judge today
Story here. h/t: NationalNewswatch.com
Former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien is accusing Judge Gomery (remember the Liberals' infamous ADSCAM scandal?) of being influenced by the MSM into making the harsh(and inconvenient-to-the-Cretchen-Teflon-Don) rulings he did.
Oh, dear... now The Little Guy from Shenanigan, who always said we had to obey whatever a judge ruled, no questions asked (he was always saying such stuff as, "Youse knows, da courts, dey say dat ......, so we, da gubmint, we gonna do dis an' do dat an' anybodys who says we's wrong an dat da courts're wrong is a racist, sexist, homophobe, caveman, bumhole an' a redneck..."), is saying that judges are very, very imperfect, corruptible and nuts, therefore unreliable, therefore must be opposed whenever we don't like what they rule?!
So is Jean Chretien finally admitting that judges, including the many he personally appointed all over the place, are corruptible and easily swayed by outside influence/interference?
Thank you, M. Chretien. You've done us all a favor by helping us to shatter the myth of judges being perfect and omniscient, almost... godlike. Now we shall proceed upon the basis of that assumption that they are most certainly not!
The Cretch has basically now said that Gomery was obsessed with the fame and publicity and played to it.
Well, isn't that rather the pot calling the kettle black? The Cretch not only loved the spotlight, but actually told 'em how to shine it on him and how to report on it afterward...
Was Gomery out to get Chretien? Only in Chretien's little mind.
So if Gomery had indeed based his ruling with respect to Chretien on the MSM thing and on preexisting bias (neither of which Chretien has proven), why is that such a bad thing, when we know that Chretien's judicial appointees are perfectly free to base their rulings on, not the law, nor the Charter/Constitution Act, but, if they so please, on their personal ideological feelings, peer pressure, political correctness, a radically extreme leftist agenda or whatever? If it's a bad thing for Gomery to rule not according to the way he's supposed to, then it's also a bad thing for judges to rule not according to law/constitutions/bills of rights (like the infamously Leftwing-extremist-activist Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the US, which makes much of the most inexplicable, insane rulings, most of which are overturned by the US Supreme Court).
Jean Chretien can't have it both ways. Either a judge must rule scrupulously and impartially according to law and constitution/bill of rights, or a judge can rule however he/she pleases, which is what happens a whole lot of the time anyway...