Judging the judges

So we are to have a parliamentary committee interrogate the next Supreme Court nominee. Presumably, this will enhance the transparency of the process but as for improving the quality of the bench, I remain skeptical.

Selection of the short list is hardly picking names out of a hat. Traditionally, Prime Ministers consult with their Justice Minister, senior judges, the bar associations, provincial governments and prominent citizens, before making their choice. And the choices have been consistently good. All the judges are exceptionally skilled. Four of the nine are women and one of these is Chief Justice, for an essentially perfect gender balance. The politics of the judges is unknown, but overall they seem middle of the road, rather like Canadians. In short, we have a highly qualified, balanced, representative Supreme Court.

It begs comparison to our southern neighbour's institution. There, the skill level is less. I offer Clarence Thomas as an example, a blatant political nominee with qualifications that could best be described as sketchy. Most egregiously, the U.S. Supreme Court includes only one woman. The politics of the judges is much more obvious than ours with a strong Republican tilt even though 50 per cent of Americans are Democrats. The U.S. version is both less qualified and less representative.

In any case, the final decision continues to lie with the PM. The committee can only recommend, not veto, so no real power has changed hands. Nonetheless, Canadians may see this process as more transparent and therefore an improvement, although considering we have far more respect for those who fill the benches of the Supreme Court than those who fill the benches of the House of Commons, perhaps not.