Last week, a group of lawyers wrote an op-ed in the Globe and Mail, calling for a constitutional challenge to judicial appointments, bemoaning the political process and concern trolling over an apparent declining lack of public confidence in the system – never mind the fact that no such lack of confidence is being expressed anywhere. Leonid Sirota writes an excellent takedown of the proposal here, but there is another concept that this group of lawyers ignores entirely, which is that of Responsible Government. Under our system, a prime minister and cabinet can legitimately make appointments so long as they enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons. Being as we’re a democracy and not a technocracy, it’s a system that allows the government to carry on its necessary business while having a mechanism to be held to account, not only at the ballot box but at any time, the House can withdraw its confidence if they feel the government has abused its powers. It cannot be understated that the whole reason we gained Responsible Government in the colonies pre-confederation is that we wanted control over our patronage appointments, so that they weren’t coming from London. It’s one of the foundational cornerstones of our whole democratic system. That this group of lawyers wants to undermine it with no actual evidence that there’s a problem – rather, what seems to be some fairly partisan sour grapes because they don’t agree ideologically with a small minority of appointments – is troubling. They should know how our system of government works. That they apparently don’t is a very big problem.

On the campaign:

• Here’s the Monday campaign trail roundup.
• Stephen Harper promised to bring over another 10,000 Syrian and Iraqi refugees from minority religious communities, but it’s not like his record on refugees is stellar. He then crassly said the other parties would just drop aid on dead people.
• Sorta refuting Linda McQuaig, Mulcair says it’s possible to expand the oil sands and protect the environment, but won’t say how.
• Justin Trudeau wants Harper to answer more questions about his terror travel ban plans, calling it more posturing.

Good reads:

• While the government likes to tout our contributions in the fight against ISIS, we’re contributing about three percent of air strikes, possibly because of budget cuts.
• The Conservatives have rescinded their “gag order” for people attending their events, but they remain by invitation only.
• Despite previously discouraging people from going over to fight ISIS on their own, the proposed travel ban won’t apply to them. (Good luck enforcing that).
• Here’s a look at those candidates running against party leaders.
• It turns out there is a Netflix tax – it’s the GST/HST that people are supposed to be self-reporting but don’t.
• Robert Hiltz finds that Mulcair’s creepy debate smizing reminded him of Ignatieff’s performance during the 2011 election.
• Colby Cosh writes about floor-crossing, and it’s really good.

Odds and ends:

Turfed Liberal MP Scott Andrews is going to run as an independent this election.

The Crown stayed bid-rigging charges against a real estate consultant used by Public Works, saying there was no reasonable chance of conviction.

Ottawa Centre Liberal candidate Catherine McKenna wants MPs to cut their mailings in half and go digital. (It was also a swipe against the prolific mailing incumbent, Paul Dewar).