Let's not divorce this from the current facts. We are nominating a superior candidate who cannot be stuck neatly into a corner based on an affiliation with one party or another. What's important to me is understanding the character of the person. Do they have integrity? Do they have an understanding of the law and experience in the law? Do they understand the role that the courts ought to play within a country like Canada?
When I see criticisms of a reference to constitutional democracy.... I don't know how that suddenly makes someone a partisan hack. My view is that someone, whatever their opinion is, having thoughtfully engaged on the philosophy behind how courts can engage in our democracy is actually a very healthy part of the exercise that informs appointments that we can make.