The panel was controversial. Many conservative critics argued it did not go nearly far enough, while many liberal critics argued it went too far. Harper made it clear that while the ad hoc committee would be able to question the nominee, it did not have the power to veto the nominee – unlike the American panels which had the power to do both. Furthermore, the MPs on the panel were asked to refrain from asking about Rothstein's personal opinions on moral issues or subjects of possible future rulings. One matter relating to Rothstein's judicial philosophy did emerge from the hearings, however. Though his name was drawn from a short list whose compilation had been led by the previous Liberal administration, Rothstein was generally considered to be the most conservative of the three nominees with respect to the role he believed judges play in the political system. The hearing lent support to that view: when asked about his judicial philosophy, Rothstein stated "I'm not sure that I would be comfortable thinking that judges should be advancing the law with a social agenda in mind. It seems to me that the social agenda is the agenda for Parliament and if Parliament wants to advance the law in social terms, that's their job."