14Sept05 - A learning experience about appointed officials

The picture is an early one of Kyla, who knew such a cute lttle thing could harbour such a mischevious attitude!

I have been riveted for the last few days by the process of electing a Chief Justice to the Supreme Court of the US. It is interesting to note that Supreme Court officials in the US are "lifetime" appointments. Currently there are 2 vacancies due to the untimely death of the Chief Justice (tie breaker kinda guy) and the resignation of Sandra Day Oconnor. Right now the Senate Judiciary Committee is interviewing a candidate for Chief Justice John Roberts, that just recently (a week ago) was only being considered for a Supreme court judge position. Considering the man is only 50 years old it means the Republicans could have a stranglehold on the Supreme court for a very long time (scary).

Now I must say that I am intrigued for 2 main reasons. The first being that the "lifetime" appointment means it is a crucial decision (you can't just fire the guy!!!!). The second being that with the overt partisan politic that is evident in the US right now (right vs. left) that I was interested to see how the different parties would treat the candidate in "on camera" interviews.

I must say that with the exception of Republican Senator, Orrin Hatch from Utah (Republican party guy) I really didn't see too much in the way of coaxing sympathetic answers (ass kissing). On the contrary I must admit I have a greater respect for one Arlen Specter (another Republican who happens to believe in Roe vs. Wade) who hammered the nominee with a number of questions regarding womens rights. Unfortunately most of Mr. Roberts answers were answered either indirectly or he declined to answer (apparently this is common practice for nominees).

Now I realize that most of you have no idea what I'm talking about, but I must say that I have been impressed with the due diligence that has been given to the nomination of a judicial official. When was the last time Canadians were able to watch the discretionary decision of a parliamentary appointment:? I realize that patronage appointments are just that but at least in this case there is a public forum and the candidate is held accountable in an open forum.

The Canadian method is more secretive. In fact this excerpt is taken directly from the Department of Justice Canada website (http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/scc/4.html) where they are proposing reform!

"Confidentiality is the most critical prerequisite to ensuring the effective operation and public credibility of the revised process. The prospect of breaches of confidentiality could result in a future reluctance on the part of those consulted to provide candid and forthright assessments, and thereby undermine the effectiveness of the process. "

Now I don't know about you, but I think if some judge is going to receive a cherry appointment until he's 75 and be deciding the most important judicial and constitutional matters in the country that we "citizens" should be privy to the review process and the information obtained. That's it for my rant...but I am impressed with the process here.

The price of gas is going down here but not as quickly or as much as it went up. It's currently 2.99/ US gallon after hitting highs of 3.35. An interesting artical in the paper mentioned that used car prices for big gas guzzling SUVs were down around 10%, maybe people are finally getting the message. Interestingly when we were looking at vehicles one of thre NIssan models we were interested in Canada isn't even sold here. It's called the Xtrail and is a 4 cylinder sport utility...wonder if we'll see it soon.

Later