Watching Judge Marshall Rothstein, our newest Supreme Court justice, perform was like watching Wayne Gretzky in his prime dodge, circle, hide and evade. Wayne had the aid of a hockey cop dressed in a uniform similar to Wayne’s, who was ready to hospitalize any opponent aiming to hospitalize Wayne.

What did we know about Justice Marshall Rothstein? Nothing.

Nothing important. And after watching the first half of the 3 1/2-hour love-in of the nominee at our country’s first public hearings into a judicial appointment, what else did we learn about Rothstein? Practically nothing. This should and could have been one of the most important epic occasions that have ever occurred in Canada. But it wasn’t.

Judge Marshall Rothstein came across on TV as one of the nicest gentlemen you could ever possibly meet — or the best actor who never got an Academy Award nomination. We don’t know. There were no genuinely probing questions he was subjected to by the 12-member parliamentary committee that hadn’t been ruled out of order by chair and Justice Minister Vic Toews and Osgoode Hall Professor Peter Hogg. He was thrown practice balls to hit over the fence.
So if we learned little, what did we learn?

We learned that the 65-year-old judge is a father of four, married for 39 years, comes from modest Prairie origins and waited on tables in a dining car paying his way through law school. Nice.

What are his drawbacks? Rothstein is not a Stephen Harper choice. He was a Liberal Party pick, chosen by a pro-abortion, pro same-sex “marriage” advocate – the recently deposed Liberal justice minister, Irwin Cotler. Cotler, who was on the committee, was positively rapturous about supporting him. Do you think Irwin would pick someone who was not like-minded?

If Rothstein has any scruples, he’ll soon have his eyes opened when he joins a Supreme Court where seven of the nine justices ruled recently that two Montreal group sex clubs were as harmless as a Saturday afternoon tea. as I wrote in my March column, this violated the Judeo-Christian concepts on which Canada was founded. These concepts are a yawner for the seven justices who worship at the shrine of left-leaning, Liberal Pierre Trudeau, the author of the travesty, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

At one time, justices declined to be interviewed for publication, because they thought they were above that sort of thing. They hid behind the whopper that they might have to face that delicate decision sometime in the future in court. Now, retiring justice John Major has the nerve to denounce the trivial questions the toothless committee was allowed to ask.

I want to know why candidates for the Canadian Supreme Court, who are looking for a job that rules on the lifestyles and moral conduct of 33 million Canadians, aren’t willing to answer hard questions.

What is Rothstein’s stand on abortion? Or on same-sex “marriage”? On increasing the age of consent? Montreal sex clubs? Homosexuals adopting children? Chris Kempling’s case? Trivializing serious pot offences with modest fines?
There is a host of other questions just begging for answers.

We don’t want Rothstein giving us pat answers he suspected we wanted to hear, such as his position on judicial activism. (He’s against it.)

What do we have to fear? The U.S. Supreme Court has four strong pro-lifers. So they are ahead of us: four pro-life justices to five pro-aborts, compared to Canada’s one pro-life justice vs eight pro-abort justices. That’s a big lead. C’mon Canada, we can do better than that.