Dwayne Chomyn, K.C.
@Citizen004
Followers
5K
Following
64K
Media
8K
Statuses
42K
oilers, politics, law, fun
Edmonton
Joined August 2016
A constitutional crisis in the making. Book it.
5
28
111
Half way through. I'm beginning to doubt that the last sentence of the book will be, "And everyone lived happily ever after."
0
0
2
That is not a picture of the UofA lawschool. At least not as I remember it.
edmontonjournal.com
3
0
4
Leaving aside the politics and the comment, Kimmel's once entertaining show has been bad for a long time now. But its Nielsen ratings aren't awful.
Jimmy Kimmel reportedly ‘f–king livid’ over ABC pulling ‘Live!’ — as Trump cheers ‘great news for America’ https://t.co/DVIjRu65XB
0
3
8
Want your tactical tools seen on national TV—not just social? Our tactical shows air on cable, satellite & streaming across the U.S. Make customers see your brand like never before. See how it works.
0
1
6
Lesson of the day for Carney Liberals: debt is debt MP Tamara Jansen to the interim PBO "Can you explain what, just in simple words, what the Liberals mean when they say they're going to separate an operating budget from a capital budget? What changes on the books when they do
17
155
405
Half way through. I'm beginning to doubt that the last sentence of the book will be, "And everyone lived happily ever after."
I started reading my friends copy & enjoyed it. Decided not to be a "free rider" & I didn't want the pressure of having to return it quickly. If you like @TristinHopper's columns (or feed), you'll like this. If you don't, you'll still find it interesting.
1
6
24
One of the weakest links on the @liberal_party bench. A man devoid of any pride or credibility. He was as stridently supportive of @JustinTrudeau's disastrous policies and he is now impliedly denouncing them. #cdnpoli
0
1
4
If you promote "smashing the patriarchy" you want to destroy what you see in this picture. We can respect women & respect family values at the same time. @iodcompany Source: https://t.co/SGzIfGnj2B
860
2K
26K
This is an oversimplification, IMO. Kimmel was cancelled in response to a serious threat.
Exactly this. As someone who has worked in media almost as long as Kimmel, you always know that your employer can pull you from the platform at any time for any reason. Free speech doesn’t give you access to other people’s platforms or to piss off your bosses.
0
0
1
This 👇 is very important. What is at stake isn't the interpretation of the Charter - the history, the plain ordinary meaning of the words used, practically, and prior jurisprudence are clear and support current practices - it is the judiciary amending a fundamental bargain that
0
5
7
"I was there." @nspector4
It is quite clear the text does not support a temporal restraint on the use of the NWS Clause. Indeed, the two originators of the clause proposed one in 1991. The #SCC noticed that too in 1988. This should be clear and settled. To decide otherwise is really to amend the Charter.
0
12
29
While I disagree with canceling people, the First Amendment applies to government actions, not the actions of private corporations.
First Stephen Colbert and now Jimmy Kimmel. It is clear that the first amendment does not apply to late night comedians making fun of the US President and his allies.
6
2
25
On Fonzi, you don’t chase jobs, the best AI startups and tech companies come to you.
0
3
21
And in response to Coyne's support of judicial amendments, of course an adverse ruling will trigger a constitutional crises. The text, the original intent, judicial history, and application of s. 33 donot support any temporal limits on its use. https://t.co/ifA02RDqwp
It is quite clear the text does not support a temporal restraint on the use of the NWS Clause. Indeed, the two originators of the clause proposed one in 1991. The #SCC noticed that too in 1988. This should be clear and settled. To decide otherwise is really to amend the Charter.
0
0
1
Given the debate today about the NWS Clause, it's a good time to up some old posts. 1/2
If the #SCC decides that preemptive use of the NWS Clause is unconstitutional, make no mistake about it, that is a judicial amendment imposed by a @liberal_party court & is at odds with the constitutional text, Supreme Court jurisprudence, & the history of its actual use. 1/3
2
2
8
It is quite clear the text does not support a temporal restraint on the use of the NWS Clause. Indeed, the two originators of the clause proposed one in 1991. The #SCC noticed that too in 1988. This should be clear and settled. To decide otherwise is really to amend the Charter.
@VanIsleStuartD @howardanglin Absolute lawless rot. “If the court rules in a way I don’t like, then the government should defy the law.” That way lies madness.
2
8
17
It is quite clear the text does not support a temporal restraint on the use of the NWS Clause. Indeed, the two originators of the clause proposed one in 1991. The #SCC noticed that too in 1988. This should be clear and settled. To decide otherwise is really to amend the Charter.
Contrary to what Coyne says, the framers of the Clause did not see it used only in the most extreme cases. Lougheed proposed the Clause because he feared what he observed coming out the US. He thought #SCOTUS was out of step with public opinion on important policy matters. 2/3
0
2
4
This headline whitewashes a Liberal democratic sell-out. Carney wants the Supreme Court to expand its power to stop the democratic use of s33 when the judges don't like the way it's being used, even when the text and purpose of the clause allow it. Carney didn't run on this.
Ottawa calls on Supreme Court to ‘clarify the law’ around use of Charter’s notwithstanding clause
18
101
311
My story from two years ago on how Canadian academics will regularly brand anything they don't like as "genocide." They're not just celebrating political violence, they're actively constructing a permission structure for it.
nationalpost.com
15
95
440
Ngl I sobbed openly when President Franklin’s statue was unveiled
Governor DeSantis Unveils Benjamin Franklin Statue in Apalachicola
88
60
2K
Sure, but did you "like", "repost", and "follow" for more great content?
@Citizen004 You mean billionaires talking about making more money. Just like how lablaws CEO is making billions in profit, but that's not you want to talk about because they support PP. All conservatives care about is millionaire's and billionaires.
0
0
3
“Where are the judges who make these decisions?” wrote the association in a Monday statement that said police had also shared their concerns with the federal government. “Our members are held accountable for the decisions they make and the actions they take. Why isn’t anyone
2
19
59
It's propaganda when media outlets refer to a "toxic drug crisis," since it's based on the false assumption that thousands of people being addicted to fentanyl is totally fine so long as it's not tainted.
8
19
173