For God's sake, don't show them how the sausages are made

Claire l'Heureux-Dubé, the former Supreme Court judge, has voiced her support for reform of the judicial selection process -- sort of.

Under her proposal, the government could appoint a commission or a committee of experts, including a couple of MPs, who would privately screen contenders, a process that is currently done in private by the Justice Department.

That's nice: they let a couple of MPs into the room. But public confirmation hearings before a parliamentary committee? Oh, gracious me, where are my smelling salts?

"When I look at what some have written about parliamentary committees, about examining judges directly, it is exactly the American way," she said. "My worry is that you would go into ideology and partisanship and that would be the end of the independence of the judiciary and that would be the end of the Supreme Court serving the public like it has done."

Possible flip responses: 1. Apparently, the US does not have an independent judiciary. 2. Apparently, the Supreme Court of Canada does not have an ideology. 3. No, God forbid we should change the process that gave us... Claire l'Heureux-Dubé. POST-SCRIPT: We have public trials, too. Often they're circuses. Lawyers grandstand. Judges showboat. Witnesses find them traumatic. Maybe we should hold them in secret, as well. Oh, I forgot: we already do.