Were they part of your review process specifically around legal thought? We know there's a range of legal perspectives and ways in which people approach the law. One of the concerns raised by a number of scholars was that when Beverley McLachlin was chief justice of the Supreme Court, the court had a very elevated level of unanimous decisions. I think it was somewhere over 60%. It means that even on the bench, you weren't having sometimes that really strong dissent that could form the foundation of a future decision. Ironically, McLachlin herself saw that with the Rodriguez decision and then the Carter decision.
Was there an active desire to seek different legal approaches in the candidates you were searching where we might not currently have someone on the bench right now embodying and viewing the law that certain way?