When federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler announced recently that the pool of potential candidates for the two vacancies on the Supreme Court of Canada was “an embarrassment of riches,” he got it partly right. A total embarrassment for the Canadian people that the choices that the “pool” for judges shrunk to Louise Charron and Rosalie Abella, two left-leaning radical feminists who favour the oxymoron same-sex “marriage” farce. Both were anti-family judges who have written rulings that extended gay rights. If you yelled, “Where’s the impartiality?” – you’d have been charged with uttering an obscenity.

Yes, two more pro-abortion leaning feminists have joined two other fem-libs. They join five male judges on the Supreme Court, who also would never be found on a LifeChain.

Who picked these people? Surely not the seven MPs and two legal experts on an all-party panel who were setups. They were not even allowed to interview the appointees. The fix was in. The determination was made in the PM’s office. The panel was allowed to mouth off about the procedures for three hours, but they were careful not to express any displeasure with the choices. Anyway, the NDP and the Bloc would have cheered the choices. What you have now is 100 per cent of the Supreme Court kowtowing to the 20 per cent fringe element.

The whole thing reminds me of the Broadway musical Guys and Dolls, when the Big Player, a prominent mobster, arrives in the Big Apple and is anxious for action. He wants to get in on “the Biggest Floating Crap Game in New York.” Unfortunately, the heat’s on and they must shoot craps in a sewer, which is the only available place the gambling fraternity can find. The Big Player is losing his shirt, until he decides to remedy this by introducing his own dice. The dice are completely white, but luckily, the Big Player remembers what the numbers are. With the memory he’s got, in no time at all he’s back on top financially.

Our Supreme Court selection method is a white dice game.

We have non-elected courts gleefully operating in areas of human rights with a bias towards radicalism. We have gag laws shoved in our faces over the years to stop us from having our say at election time. (What better time? Did democracy just die and I didn’t notice?)

I’m sorry to hear that Supreme Court candidates are squeamish about being asked such delicate questions as their stand on killing of the unborn, whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry, sex with children 14 years of age (awful but lawful) or lawyers who have consensual sex with their clients. On this last matter, the Canadian Bar Association came out in favour of it recently. That means that they’re also in favour of fornication and adultery.

Who will be clamouring for their “rights” next? Doctors? Is polygamy around the corner? If the only thing our Canadian Supreme Court judges have in common is that they are all hedonists, my wife and I may have to cash in our Air Miles and take refuge at the Vatican.