Monday, February 27, 2006

More Thrilling than Finland-Sweden

You can read play by play of the Supreme Court quasi-hearings here.


  • I'm actually in favour of a more open process, but I'm watching it live and asking myself 'what's the point?'

    What inane questions they are asking. Quoting here from Dan Cook's live blogging:

    Diane Ablonczy (Con): How do you view your role as a Judge?

    Question Carole Freeman (BQ): What do you think about this process? And any ideas for an alternate process? (I like his answer: "no")

    Rob Moore (Con) the Parliamentary Secretary to Justice takes the cake so far: What can Canadians gather from this hearing? (We're going to find out a lot about how good a judge he'll be from that one. Worse, this was a prepared questions. Even worse, Rothstein appeared to be reading from a prepared answer! What's the point of these hearings other than just token openness and a chance for MPs to hear themselves speak and get in front of the camera.)

    The only real highlight so far (and it's mostly done) was Joe Comartin, who opposes this process, asking a question not to Rothstein but to esteemed academic, former Osgoode Dean, brilliant constitutional expert and Scholar in Residence at Canada's top law firm, Professor Hogg (who is directing and advising on the proceedings). Question: Other than the U.S., can you name another country where a Justice is questioned? To which the good humoured man succinctly replied: U.K., South Africa. Um, OK, on to the next relevant probing question.


    By Blogger Ted Betts, at 3:36 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home