One of the hallmarks of a bad idea is that the best possible outcome is a relative lack of harm. Fortunately, from the sound of the coverage so far, Justice Rothstein's questioning before Parliament today resulted in just such an outcome.
From the looks of the coverage, every answer from Justice Rothstein was either to the effect that issues must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, or to the effect that every controversial issue has two sides. These appear to be fairly obvious answers from someone well experienced in the role of neutral arbiter - and indeed it would be shocking if any judicial nominee would answer otherwise.
But the flip side of the proceeding is that the questions and the answers both seem to have been utterly devoid of meaningful content. Nobody appears to have emerged from the hearing with any better idea about who Justice Rothstein is, let alone how he would handle his role on the court.
Which means that the process proved ultimately to be a waste of time rather than a long step toward a politicized judiciary. And while it's the best that could have been hoped for, it's not something that Canada needs to see repeated anytime soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment