MPs to question new Supreme Court pick

[Wilber]

FTA

You are a lawyer and they are judges. It is your job to ask questions, why would you be so nervous about answering a few? Hopefully the process can avoid becoming too political but why should ignorance be bliss when it comes to choosing our country's final arbitrators? I am quite interested in this. Aside from their published personal histories, we know very little about these people who can have such a huge influence on our lives.

[FTA Lawyer]

FTA

You are a lawyer and they are judges. It is your job to ask questions, why would you be so nervous about answering a few? Hopefully the process can avoid becoming too political but why should ignorance be bliss when it comes to choosing our country's final arbitrators? I am quite interested in this. Aside from their published personal histories, we know very little about these people who can have such a huge influence on our lives.

I'm not saying be blissfully ignorant...but anyone who is interested will be able to research the background of any nominee (including their previous case decisions) and draw their own conclusions about what they find. I'm not sure what asking direct questions will do to assist.

I know several very intelligent and superbly qualified judges who are very poor public speakers and could quite easily be made to "look bad" by a skillful questioner. How does this display have any relevance to their ability to be a good SCC justice?

Above all, my concern is protecting one of the pillars of our system - unbiased and impartial courts. Why would I want a nominee to answer a question like "Do you support the traditional definition of marriage"...a question that very well could be put to them...when that very issue might need to be decided by the SCC in the foreseeable future.

Justice must not only be done, but it must also be seen to be done...and having judges on record about contentious issues before the cases are heard in the SCC gives the appearance of an unfair hearing...or no "hearing" at all.

This has been the basis for a number of "non-answers" in the U.S. confirmation hearings and has also lead to much of the public's dissatisfaction with the process...becuase they expect to get answers and don't really understand the importance of the reason for a refusal.

Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't try it, just saying I'm a bit worried about the result we might be setting ourselves up for.

FTA

[wellandboy]

Valid points FTA, but I do think the good ultimately outweighs the bad on this. Most people have little or no real understanding (myself included) of our legal system. A broader exposure to the general public to the process is a good thing.

[shoop]

Your concern is a valid one. I think MPs will tread lightly in this area. Even if they don't, the justices really should pursue the *non-answers* to which you refer.

The best case for these hearings is to help the public understand the approach justices will take when making their decisions.

There is nothing to really stop justices from pursuing a different style from their past decisions one appointed to the high court. Best case scenario, this process will let the public have a better idea where the justice is coming from *now*, rather than where they were coming from 10 years ago.

Wouldn't this be considered taking positive steps towards reducing the democratic deficit? Seems like more than Martin every tried to do.

Above all, my concern is protecting one of the pillars of our system - unbiased and impartial courts. Why would I want a nominee to answer a question like "Do you support the traditional definition of marriage"...a question that very well could be put to them...when that very issue might need to be decided by the SCC in the foreseeable future.

Justice must not only be done, but it must also be seen to be done...and having judges on record about contentious issues before the cases are heard in the SCC gives the appearance of an unfair hearing...or no "hearing" at all.

[geoffrey]

I think that waste is another false objection.

What is the extra money involved? The room they use on parliament hill probably sits open a lot of the time, doing stuff like this is the job of parliamentarians. What time? The day or so of prep on the part of the MPs staff plus three hours questioning?

These are all minimal expenses and worth it on that *small* chance that the justice makes an error that justifies not confirming them for the position. (In the eyes of the PM.)

The masses? wtf is up with that...

It's kind of a waste of time/effort/money. It doesn't do anything, it doesn't work in our system like in the US.

The masses will think its cool and effective though, sure to get support from some.

Nothing will come out of it though, nothing can happen. Kind of silly if you ask me. There are much better reforms we can take that will actually make a difference.

[shoop]

Yeah, ok.

Still none of these arguments make a convincing case for not doing it.

It's a minor thing, but one little piece of the history of achievements for the 2007 election.

Nothing will come out of it though, nothing can happen. Kind of silly if you ask me. There are much better reforms we can take that will actually make a difference.