I think this: it is legitimate, post-Charter, to want to know about the views of prospective appellate court judges. And, similarly, it's okay to criticize, in the strongest terms, the Bush administration.
But cut the bullshit, you know? If you oppose Rosie Abella's politics - like Toews clearly does - then SAY THAT. Don't try and have it both ways, with an attack on “process.”
David Warren writes this today:
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when Irwin Cotler, our country's new justice minister, introduced Abella to our highest bench.
I laughed, at first -- even though I knew it wasn't a joke, that the appointment of Abella and of Louise Charron, two radical feminist Ontario Appeal Court judges to the vacant places among the Santa suits, was probably meant to provoke people like me.
To provoke, generally, anyone who disagrees with the notion that the law exists to advance projects in social engineering
This is the woman who attempted to establish, as a young family court judge, such remarkable legal principles as: No child-support payment can be "inappropriately" high; and the final, contractual terms of a divorce settlement may be re-opened at the woman's whim.
These, and other such creative judgments, were struck down by higher courts.
But now, Abella is the Supreme Court. Her views on anal intercourse alone -- and they are extensive --would have been worth exploring.
It's funny that when the two judges were announced, the papers quoted other judges praising the two appointments. Why do you think you didn't hear other judge's criticism? Do you think that they all believe that those two are the right appointments at this time? What other reasons do you think there are for them to keep silent?
No one dares make the appointments "political" - certainly not those in the law industry - afterall - it could affect your career path.