Do we really want to go down that road?

Some highlights from a Toronto Star article on Harper's public hearing for Canada's next Supreme Court nominee...

Yesterday, Harper talked about seeking the "judicial temperament" in a Supreme Court nominee, and expressed his preference for jurists who are "prepared to apply the law rather than make it" and avoid being "inventive" in their rulings.

"The mere fact that a public hearing will take place represents an unprecedented step forward," Harper told reporters yesterday, adding the nomination will be "the least partisan process in history."

Harper pointed to the recent confirmations of U.S. Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito as examples that public hearings need not become a partisan circus.

Oh yeah, Mr. Ethics? Well, listen to this advice from someone who's been there:

"My problem has always been that in the U.S. it's a charade. The nominees rehearse, they go through mock hearings. ... You then end up with a very close vote, so I wonder what the public thinks about the quality of judge they're getting when half the committee votes against them." – John Major, outgoing Supreme Court Justice

Funny, last time I checked calling the "recent confirmations" of John Roberts and Samuel Alito a partisan circus is an understatement. These two hearings created a complete mockery of the so-called impartiality of the US Supreme Court by making the whole process inherently political by the vary partisan nature of the questioning and final votes.

I really don't see how public hearings, in effect mock-hearings really, are in any way a "step forward" as Prime Minister Pinocchio seems to claim.