To identify the inspiration for Shane Ross' fascination with judicial appointments, one need look no further than his 2012 book, co-authored with Nick Webb, The Untouchables: The People who Helped Wreck Ireland - and are Still Running the Show.

The book is well written and informative, but it is misguided in its descriptions of perceived corruption with regards to some lawyers, and judicial appointments. Take, for instance, Ross’ excoriation of former Attorney General, and AIB Chairman, Dermot Gleeson.

Ross is scathing of Gleeson, and documents his time as Chairman, and his failings. Indeed, Gleeson himself acknowledged this in his evidence before the Banking Inquiry in 2015, conceding that whilst he did his ‘level best…it wasn’t enough’.

Ross implies that Gleeson was a barrister for the rich, but, in fact, Ross fails to dig deeper into history to find an objective story. Gleeson, for example, worked pro bono alongside Mary Robinson in the seminal 1982 case of Murphy v Attorney General, which has been described as 'the most important milestone on the road to securing the judicial recognition of equality before the law for women in Ireland'.

Exposing this oversight may seem pedantic, but it exposes fatal flaws in the argument.

There can be no doubting that without Ross becoming part of the current Government in 2016, the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill would not be supported by the Fine Gael party. Thus, there can be no separating Ross from this proposed Bill.

There are several core issues with the newly proposed Commission, and all can be understood by Ross’ modus operandi. I will mention just two.

Firstly, it is, as pointed out by Fianna Fail Justice Spokesperson, Jim O’Callaghan, deeply disrespectful to the Chief Justice to have a lay chair, whilst the CJ would merely be an ordinary member.

As much as he’d probably enjoy it, I don’t believe Ross would think it appropriate to demand that he chair Cabinet meetings from now on, whilst Taoiseach Leo Varadkar would merely sit as a member of Cabinet.

Secondly, it is simply constitutionally perilous, in my opinion, to have the membership who make the judgment for selection of candidates weighed in a majority of lay members.

Lawyers and sitting judges are the best people capable of determining who has the necessary temperament, intellectual prowess and work ethic to command the job of a judge.

The aforementioned group see the potential candidate at their best and worst; on their feet in the court, summarising complex nuanced issues into understandable and persuasive arguments, along with the communication and interpersonal skills when they interact with them in a personal or professional manner. Suggesting that any other handpicked group of non-legal people have the ability to do this better is proffered by Ross without ample evidence.

Furthermore, members of the Commission who won’t be able to see first-hand this crucial evidence for themselves may fall foul to a number of psychological errors, known as cognitive biases.

In the area of job applications particularly, Nobel prizewinning psychologist Daniel Kahneman in his book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, mentions the contribution of a halo effect on judgments.

This is where an observer formulates a judgment on the character or ability of a candidate, for instance, based on their overall first impression of them. It is therefore a confirmation bias.

This is not to say, of course, that the legal members could not fall foul to this error also, but the probability is lower given that they have the ability of witnessing the candidate work in many different testing moments over a long period of time, whilst also examining their achievements and descriptions in writing or otherwise, of which a non-legal member may only have the latter.

Therefore, a mix of lay and legal members is, I believe, the right thing to do to get the correct balance of any perceived outsider v insider bias.

However, the majority of members should work directly within the legal profession as judges or lawyers, and the Chair should be the Chief Justice.

Ross is undoubtedly a very intelligent man, and I respect his attempt to work with his ideologically incompatible bedfellows in Fine Gael.

Ultimately, however, when it comes to judicial appointments, Ross is  trenchant and uncompromising with the potential to endanger a branch of government in the judiciary.

Without Ross, this Bill may look something more like Fianna Fail’s alternative Bill, proposed in September of last year, which was reasonable, balanced, considered, and without the motives of Ross.

There's still time for Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan to read The Untouchables, and perhaps stand up to Ross in showing he is not untouchable himself.