Here is the question I posted there in the question section.

Mr. Justice Rothstein: During the last federal election, former Prime Minister Martin surprised us all during the leadership debates by promising to abolish federal use of the Not-Withstanding Clause. Do you see a role for this clause or would you like to see it use abolished federally and/or provincially?

A glaring omission at slaw: no mention whatsoever (seach the site rothstein+human+rights) of Rothstein's decade plus as a human rights adjucator. Not a word. This little tidbit of information was noticeably absent from MSM articles too. Omitting Rothstein's history of kangaroo court/HRC rulings from scrutiny only makes me more skeptical, not less.

This part is problematic:

"Rothstein: 10 things he brings"

We have identified ten elements in which Justice Rothstein stands out:

"Personal background - Winnipeg upbringing. Jewish - which would have been much more worthy of comment twenty years ago. "
(http://www.slaw.ca/marshall-rothstein-pages/rothstein-10-things-he-brings/)

If Rothstein were Catholic, or Muslim, would slaw be trumpeting this fact as something positive as well? Of course not. A practicing Catholic or Muslim wouldn't even be considered for the SCOC in this day and age and don't pretend otherwise. Women and homosexuals would take to the streets; there would be an unprecedented backlash.

I'm well aware of and sympathetic to the struggles Bora Laskin endured back in the old days but if "Jewish = good and Catholic and Muslim = bad" is the new thing - as appears to be the case - then I would suggest the pendulum has swung too far.

All:

Apologies for the O/T, but check out:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=1&issue=20060224

It's a NealeNews link. The story is critically important, and something that should be passed far and wide. The MSM in Canada will likely not report on it, as the conclusion does not support their agenda.

Sorry again for the O/T.

Why am I jaded about this publicly broadcast job interview for a preordained appointment?

I chucked a question in there anyway pertaining to constitutional jurisdictional ruling ( whether he belives the doctrine of paramountcy is legitimate within the constructs of an egalitarian confederal agreement) and asking the "applicant" if he subscribes to the 1950 SCC ruling that the constitutionally enumerated provincial and federal jurisdictions are exclusive "watertight" compartments which cannot be traded, swaped, bartered, shared, abandoned or presumptively assumed by Ottawa.

I know the pismire is a centralist-federalist paramountcy advocate or he wouldn't even be on the Fed's short list....I just want to hear him admit in public...that he intends to rule outside the traditional application of the constitution in favor of federal jurisdictional expansion.....just so there's no surprises.

Analogue said: "Personal background - Winnipeg upbringing. Jewish - which would have been much more worthy of comment twenty years ago. "

I think it's pertainent if you consider Winnipeg's north end has produced some of Canada's most prominent political networkers and social radicals like Mo Strong, the Bronfmans and Woodsworth's deciples.

And away we go!

Annonalogue,

"a practicing catholic....wouldn't even be considered..."

Check again. Half the court is catholic. Are we to assume that none of them go to church?

Unless by "practicing" you meant somone who tries to impose personal religious views on the law.
Such a person would be unprofessional and unqualified.