The Judge we wait for.

The Hippy · Dec 4, 2015

Did he wait this long to align himself with new Gov's plan whatever it was gonna be. If he goes against fair access and home grows it's been a fix from the start.
To go against home growing is not siding on fair access.

Makes me think he waited to see what was gonna happen after the election. Which seems wrong to me.

cannadan · Dec 4, 2015

ya it kinda does...hippy it kinda does

VIANARCHRIS · Dec 4, 2015

I can't for the life of me think of what his excuse is going to be for the delay. He can't use the gov...he is impartial. Unless there is an automatic 'pause' on a case when a new gov comes in? I doubt it...the Libs actually dropped the niqab case. It will have to be a legitimate reason because you know there's going to be alot of scrutiny.

gb123 · Dec 4, 2015

i've said he'd wait from the start.
I still think he'll just walk away without a decision. Give some cock and bull excuse and the Feds will set it the way they like.
It may put patients right back to square one...in court... talk about a waste.....

TheRealDman · Dec 4, 2015

Just pure speculation now but, maybe he was waiting to hear the Throne Speech to see if the Libs we serious about legalization? Really, if MJ is legal and home grows will be allowed in some form (speculation), it could take a lot off Phelan's plate, no? I dunno, maybe he's just waiting for hell to freeze over, but this BS waiting is getting fuckin OLD?!?!

mojoganjaman · Dec 4, 2015

you folk wait...I carry on...its in my best interest...

)

mojo

R.Raider · Dec 5, 2015

I'll still be growing either way but still would like to hear some closure on things.

cannadan · Dec 6, 2015

I would hope for a thoroughness that only a judge can bring to the table.
in other words...he must apply the constitution/and our rights and freedoms in a way
that the next "potential" con Prime minister can not just undo because he or she see's fit on a whim....

doingdishes · Dec 7, 2015

cannadan said:
I would hope for a thoroughness that only a judge can bring to the table.
in other words...he must apply the constitution/and our rights and freedoms in a way
that the next "potential" con Prime minister can not just undo because he or she see's fit on a whim....

the judge makes his decision and then HC will do the bare minimum

gb123 · Dec 7, 2015

cannadan said:
I would hope for a thoroughness that only a judge can bring to the table.
in other words...he must apply the constitution/and our rights and freedoms in a way
that the next "potential" con Prime minister can not just undo because he or she see's fit on a whim....

we can't let that happen!!!

The Judge we wait for.

The Hippy

Well-Known Member

cannadan

Well-Known Member

VIANARCHRIS

Well-Known Member

gb123

Well-Known Member

TheRealDman

Well-Known Member

mojoganjaman

Well-Known Member

R.Raider

Well-Known Member

cannadan

Well-Known Member

doingdishes

Well-Known Member

gb123

Well-Known Member