Because it’s 2016, we’re in an age of when gender, ethnicity, indigenous heritage, bilingualism and geography are now over-riding considerations in the appointment process. Merit, not so much.

There’s a Supreme Court vacancy and, judging by the howls from Atlantic Canada, a wave of angry alienation is coming if that region doesn’t get a voice of its own on the bench.

Their cause is before the courts, some Liberal senators are demanding an Atlantic appointment and they’re backed by daily yelps in the House of Commons, where MPs voted unanimously to put an eastern booster on the bench in a non-binding resolution.

That appointment is pending without a regional commitment from the Prime Minister, who only seeks someone representing Canadian diversity.

The primary limitation is Justin Trudeau’s edict that any judge, not matter how esteemed, must be bilingual or they need not apply.

There are a myriad of public and private appointments where regional representation and bilingualism are necessary, but it’s hard to see how missing either would hinder the work of the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, for example, was born in a small Alberta town and educated in Edmonton, but you’d be hard pressed to spot Prairie roots in any of her judgements.

The three Quebec and three Ontario justices have never been accused of showing any home province bias in their judgements.

After all, the law is not subject to regional interpretation and rights under the Charter are not negotiable. Anyone sitting in the Supreme Court is there to act for the nation, not a province or region.

In my view, the more worrisome limitation is limiting the judicial talent pool to the 17 per cent of Canadians who speak both official languages, even though blanket courtroom translation services are an earpiece away.

So let’s not cut off the best and brightest legal minds from the big bench with political considerations which do not compromise their hugely important function.

Fluency in either official language should be the only linguistic limitation.

And how they performed in the courtroom, not where they went to high school, should be the over-riding consideration for elevation to the top court.

That’s the Last Word…