Who, you ask, is Bernard Amyot? He's president of the Canadian Bar Association. And Canada is getting ready for only its second-ever public hearing to feature a Supreme Court nominee. According to Amyot, "A judge's personal beliefs should be off limits." Here's an extended excerpt from Amyot's May 4 column in the Toronto Star:Our concern is that the partisan nature of Parliament lends itself to the demonstration of political agendas. Questions about personal opinions or prior writings can taint the judiciary by giving Canadians the wrong impression – that courts prejudge cases based on personal, partisan views, and that judges are beholden to political parties or the government that appointed them. Canadians must be secure in the knowledge that judges decide cases after they hear the arguments presented to them, with impartiality and integrity and applying the relevant law.The purpose of any nomination hearing should be to give Canadians an opportunity to get acquainted with their new Supreme Court justice. An introduction. Not a grilling. Not second-guessing. The event must be conducted respectfully, professionally and with civility. The questions should be subject to a publicly available protocol that would outline the kind of questions appropriately asked of a new justice – questions presenting the person while maintaining the professionalism and integrity of the position, the court and the justice system.For example, questions about the candidate's approach to judging, their language abilities or their knowledge of the common law, civil law and indigenous legal systems would be appropriate. On the other hand, criticism of past judgments, questions on issues that might come before the court, on personal beliefs or preferences that intrude on the candidate's privacy or dignity would be inappropriate. It is imperative that partisanship be left out of the process and the right balance of transparency and openness results in an excellent appointment.Demanding that a nominee will decide cases according to the preferences of members of parliament would be inappropriate.read more
original article