That's it, that's all: Abella and Charron are in. The new Supremes emerged almost entirely unscathed from the parliamentary review yesterday, which was short on fireworks but long on wounded Con pride. Case in point, Peter MacKay:

I suggest to you that it is patronizing for you to say we would turn this into a three-ring circus . . . This is now window dressing, lip service.

And Vic Toews:

This promise of transparency appears to have been abandoned for what in fact is a rubber-stamp process.

Which may be true. The process could use some fine-tuning--MPs should have more time to prepare, and in the end, it may even be desirable for the prospective candidates to appear before the committee themselves, with the scope of questions circumscribed by some sort of moderator from the legal community. But the fact remains, the best the Cons could do in this case was try to smear Abella as being too ardent a fan of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which happens to be rather popular with the vast majority of Canadians. Maybe the hearings represented a wobbly step forward in democratic terms, but no political points were scored by anyone but Cotler.

Cotler's appearance before the parliamentary review panel is underway as I write, but today was a busy day as the punditocracy made its voice heard on the new Supremes. The Post, predictably, had Andrew Coyne on the front page demanding Martin withdraw the Abella appointment, and Lorne Gunter inside bemoaning the fact that,

“Paul Martin, once thought to be the Liberals' Great Right Hope, has produced what will likely be the most activist, left-wing court in Canadian history.”

Unfortunate turn, that. Jeff Simpson takes a similarly cheap shot at Abella, claiming:

"Politics, or political optics, had as much to do with these appointments as merit . . . There were very senior ministers in the Martin government deeply opposed to Judge Abella's appointment. One said privately some months ago that an Abella appointment would be made over that minister's dead body."

One guess who that was. Anyway, The Globe has a more nuanced editorial spanking the process but patting Martin on the back for his taste in justices. More about the dynamic duo is available over at The Star, with Abella profiled here and Charron here.

The Star has an intriguing article about the rumble of opposition among Liberal women to Martin's Star Wars fetish. According to Anita Neville, not a single female Liberal MP has voiced support for the magical missile defence shield George W. and DND are desperate to rig up. She goes on:

But many feel very strongly about it — that we did the right thing in Iraq and that (abstaining from missile defence) is the right thing to do here.

Here's Sam Bulte:

Do I believe that's something that women should unite about? Yes.

And Eleni Bakopanos:

There's generally a consensus among women that pacifist options should be pursued at all levels.

Of course, no more needs to be said on how Carolyn Parrish feels:

. . . the Canadian people are fundamentally against (the project) . . . It's not something we should be entertaining.

Françoise Bovin, Maria Minna, and Raymonde Folco are also on record as opposing missile defence. Who knows, maybe today PM is reconsidering the wisdom of shutting some of his party's brightest lights out of the government, where Cabinet solidarity rules apply?

UPDATE: Colby Cosh has the alternate neocon-universe version of this posting over here.

It's Abella and Charron.

Looks like Martin's making up for locking women out of Cabinet. Charron was a consensus pick; Abella, on the other hand, is quite frankly an astonishing choice. Somewhere in sunny Ottawa, Vic Toews and John Reynolds are stewing in their own juices . . .

Chantal Hébert has caught on that Martin is not inspiring confidence, and the result is gory, gory stuff. Paul Wells chimes in with this ancedote:

In 2002 a Liberal very close to Paul Martin asked why I was so critical of the candidate. I gave a very long reply. Finally, realizing I was being less than pithy, I summed up: "I just want to beat the rush."

Then reminds us that two vacancies remain on the Supreme Court. And 10 in the Senate. Fixing health care "for a generation" awaits PM in September, and beyond that, SSM, John Gomery, cities, the inevitable disappointment of a Liberal flip-flop on national childcare, and maybe even the resurgence of the Quebec referendum question--just to make things frisky.

Ever lurking earward to the Internet's political murmuring, who else but TND to announce, here and now, that John Kerry is bound to win in November? And that it won't even be close? (Hard to say this early on, but TND leans toward EV 332/206). Alas, there can be no such certainty about who will sit at JFK's right hand in the next Democratic Cabinet, but fortunately, political geeks are legion and hell-bent on airing their predictions in every corner of the blogosphere. TND is there, and here presents the cream of the premonitive crop: Peer into the (oft-discredited, always endearing) crystal ball . . .

1. State. CW holds that this job is Richard Holbrooke's or Bill Richardson's to lose. Richardson is a definite no: he's got his eye on beating Edwards, Obama, and Hillary for the Dem nomination in 2012. Prickly Dick Holbrooke would be more likely to accept, but the Godfather of Dayton may not be the best man to massage America's relations with everyone but Tony Blair back to suppleness. Senators Joe Biden and Bob Graham have been much-discussed. So has Felix Rohatyn, the Democratic eminence grise, who could play Warren Christopher to Kerry's Clinton. TND picks: Former NATO supreme commander and erstwhile Kerry-challenger Wesley Clark.
2. Treasury. Kerry economics confidante Roger Altman has the CW's vote--but he's compromised by Clinton-era shenanigans and might be a tough confirmation sell. Senate Democratic rainmaker and ex-Goldman Sachs poobah John Corzine could steer the economic rudder, so long as he doesn't run for NJ governor in November. Media mogul-turned-investment banker Steve Rattner and vice-presidential head-hunter Jim Johnson are both possibilities. Heck, why not perturb the ghosts of the 90s boom by giving Clinton economic maestro Bob Rubin his old job back? TND picks: Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines, whose impeccable credentials will outweigh his symbolic import as America's first black finance minister.
3. Commerce. Rattner, Johnson, and Altman could all serve here, or perhaps outgoing Blue Dog Senator John Breaux? Brookings Institution senior fellow Bob Shapiro? Even a GOPer brought in to highlight a bipartisan urge? TND picks: Laura Tyson. Hands down, the former NEA and CEA chair should be at the top of Kerry's list.
4. Homeland Security. Clark has been touted for this job, as have other former military folk like Gen. Claudia Kennedy and Gen. Eric Shinseki. TND picks: Former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart. He co-chaired both the national commission that issued three public reports forecasting the age of terrorism and the Council on Foreign Relations task force on homeland security. An obvious choice.
5. Defense. With Clark ineligible and John McCain unlikely to accept the job, Defense could go to a senior Dem like Graham or Sam Nunn, or be the natural spot to slot in a Republican like Chuck Hagel or even Bill Cohen. TND picks: Michigan Senator Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.
6. Attorney-General. Camera-chasing NY AG Eliot Spitzer is the perennial blogger fave, but he's destined for the governor's mansion in Albany and unlikely to make the jump. Congressman John Conyers is also a crowd-pleaser, but too liberal. Then there's Dennis Archer, whose term as ABA prez just ended; the first black mayor of Detroit would be an inspired choice. Yet . . . TND picks: Jamie Gorelick, who essentially ran Justice under Janet Reno. A former vice chair of Fannie Mae and 9-11 Commission member, Gorelick would be the anti-Ashcroft Democrats are clamouring for.
7. Labor. Gephardt, Gephardt, Gephardt. Not a Cabinet-speculation article has been written that does not mention the putative veepstakes runner-up as the unions' guy for labor. TND is note so sure. This would be a great Cabinet seat to fill with someone who could reflect the changing facing of working America, like, say, Henry Cisneros. TND picks: Harvard economist Lawrence Katz.
8. NSA and National Intelligence. Sure, Biden or Hart could do either of these jobs, or maybe Bob Kerrey. But Kerry would ignore the biggest security and foreign policy talents in his kitchen cabinet at his own peril. TND picks: recovered Bush aide Rand Beers for NSA and recovered Gore aide Leon Fuerth for director of national intel.
9. Education. Larry Summers? Won't touch it. A middling Cabinet post could be reasonably considered a demotion from his current gig. Could stick an able Texan here, like Ron Kirk. TND picks: Archer.
10. Everything else. TND picks two heavyweight Dem governors who supported Kerry from the get-go for the big domestic spots: Jeanne Shaheen of NH for HHS, and Tom Vilsack of Iowa for Interior. Former Senator Max Cleland to VA, Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald to Transport, and Ed Markey to Energy. Civil rights icon John Lewis would make for a dazzling UN ambassador. And White House chief of staff? Surely Mary Beth deserves it.

Finally: Simply having run against Kerry does not qualify any of the other 2004 Dem contenders (like Dean, even moreso like Moseley-Braun and Kucinich) to a job with the Administration. Dean's most effective right where he is, and the other two should be kept as far away from senior policymaking as possible.

Justice Jack Major, appointed to the Supreme Court in 1992, is also likely to retire in the next year or so. Which means Martin will, barring some catastrophic misstep that dunks his government, have the opportunity to fill a third of the seats on the country's top bench. The CBC has a superb backgrounder on Court appointments, and an interesting list of potential candidates. CBC gives the nod to Abella and Gillese, both touted in this corner previously, and tosses a few more names into the hat:

• Louise Charron: (Ontario Court of Appeal) A bilingual francophone Ontarian, Charron graduated from the University of Ottawa and was admitted to the Bar of Ontario in 1977. She was assistant Crown attorney for Ottawa-Carleton and taught law at the University of Ottawa. Wrote judgment in Ontario ruling that allowed same-sex couples to seek alimony.
• Eleanore Cronk (Ontario Court of Appeal) Torontonian Cronk graduated from the University of Windsor and was called to the bar of Ontario in 1977. She served as counsel to the chief coroner for Ontario in the recent Walkerton tainted water inquiry.
• Janet Simmons (Ontario Court of Appeal) Graduated from the University of Western Ontario and was called to the Bar of Ontario in 1979. Simmons is a former director of the Superior Court Judges Association.
• Karen Weiler (Ontario Court of Appeal) A native of Saskatchewan, Weiler was appointed to the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1992. Before that she practised law in Thunder Bay with the firm Weiler, Weiler and Maloney.

Not to mention James MacPherson, the Dal grad from Down East who joined Gillese in issuing the landmark 2003 ruling favouring same-sex marriage.

Back before his coronation, Martin committed himself to reforming the process by which vacancies are filled on Canada's top court. He encouraged the Commons justice committee to start hearings on appropriate changes in the current process, which is both unilateral and secretive, and after hearings in the spring, the committee issued a short report in May. All the opposition parties filed their own reports. The majority and minority reports differed on key features, but they agreed on the premise that an advisory committee should be struck whenever a vacancy arises on the Supreme Court, and that the federal government should be restricted to filling the vacancy from among the list of nominees prepared by the advisory committee. Whether or not this was a good idea is sort of beside the point now.

Martin's opened a big can of worms. He can proceed now to fill the positions without waiting for the justice committee's recommendations, but that would provide a lot of fodder for Harper to knock him over the head with the democratic reform blackjack. It's more likely that he will appoint an interim advisory committee to compile a shortlist of nominees, in time for the court's fall term. Time is of the essence.

More on Supreme Court appointments from The Star. To whit:

In a resolution to be presented at its annual meeting in Winnipeg later this month, the [Canadian Bar Association] is asking the government to ensure "all three founding peoples of Canada"—English, French and aboriginal—are continuously recognized in appointments to the court. It could mean changing the Supreme Court Act to do so, says a key proponent.

But who? One name being tossed around is that of Justice Harry LaForme, the author of Canada's first ruling allowing gay marriage. Aboriginal groups have written to PM urging him to appoint LaForme because of the growing number of landmark legal battles involving aboriginal issues. A 10-year veteran of the Ontario Superior Court, is one of about 20 aboriginal judges in Canada. He is a member of the Mississaugas of New Credit First Nation in southern Ontario, where he was born and raised. His most groundbreaking ruling was a July 2002 decision that struck down the federal ban on same-sex marriage for the first time; he also authored a 1998 ruling that denying marijuana for medicinal purposes breaches the Charter of Rights.