Kangaroo Hearings

But, when the examination has ended, there will be no vote by committee members to endorse or reject the candidate before Mr. Harper confirms his nomination on March 1.

“We’re not asking for a vote,” Mr. Harper said. “I will obviously follow the hearings and I will certainly, in the hours that follow, expect to hear opinions from the various committee members. We don’t want, at this point, to overpoliticize the process.”
the globe and mail

MacKenzie King, whom one must admit was a political master, came up with the imortal line, “conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription,”. Harper has gone him one better by holding hearings which will not result in any result.

Very pomo of him.

Written by jay on February 21st, 2006 with 3 comments.
Read more articles on CPC and Canadian Politics and law.

Related articles

3 comments

Read the comments left by other users below, or:

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com Ben (The Tiger in Exile)
#1. February 21st, 2006, at 6:37 PM.

It’s window-dressing from Harper, that’s all.

It’s better window-dressing than Martin’s window-dressing, but it’s window-dressing all the same…

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com MarkC
#2. February 21st, 2006, at 8:10 PM.

Harper’s an incrementalist. First, get people used to the idea of hearings. Then, allow a vote. The election was not the Millenium.

Get your own gravatar by visiting gravatar.com DCardno
#3. February 23rd, 2006, at 12:37 AM.

You don’t even have to have a vote, or absolute power of veto. If the committee issues a report saying “we approve of this (these) candidates for these reasons, and we do not approve of this (these) candidates for these reasons. Out of the candidates we approve of, the most suitable is XXX, for these reasons” Harper (and any future PM - moreso after the practice becomes convention) will be in a really tough spot if he picks anyone other than the most-highly recommended, or at least one of the acceptable candidates. If the committee report has a mnority opinion, fine - it lays out the preferences that each committee member has for the nature and role of the Judiciary - and if that serves as a proxy for their Party’s position, or if their Party leaders are forced to defend it, then we are all that much better-informed about a significant long-term consideration about each Party’s suitability for office.

Leave your comment...

If you want to leave your comment on this article, simply fill out the next form:




You can use these XHTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> .