With the Senate spending scandal setting the backdrop, a unanimous Supreme Court on Friday torpedoed Prime Minister Harper's Senate reform agenda. The Prime Minister has since admitted as much: Senate reform is dead and abolition off the table. Achieving either would require opening the constitution, an option that both the Liberals and Conservatives, but not the NDP, have categorically ruled out. Twenty years may have elapsed, but the lessons of Meech Lake and Charlottetown have not been lost on most of the players.While opinion is divided on what should be done about the Senate, one thing is clear: Canadians are dissatisfied with the status quo, an outcome this decision all but assures. In their eagerness to slam the door on Harper's proposals, the Court may have foreclosed most every other option. To fully appreciate why, we must go all the way back to Confederation.The Constitution that brought Canada into being, and which governs us still, provides for a political architecture “similar in Principle to the United Kingdom.” As in the UK, our Parliament is to consist of two chambers, one elected and one not. Like the House of Lords, the Senate is to provide “sober second thought.” It is not to have the legitimacy of an elected chamber.Since 1867 Senators have been appointed by the Governor General on the recommendation of the prime minister. Subject to a few basic qualifications, the prime minister can recommend virtually anyone. In 1982, this selection process was entrenched in Canada's written constitution; henceforth, changes to the “method of selecting Senators” would require the consent of seven province representing at least 50% of the population to implement (the “7/50” rule).The prime minister's reform agenda consisted of “consultative” elections supplemented by term limits. The government twisted itself into a pretzel to avoid opening the constitution and the onerous requirements of the 7/50 rule, asserting that the prime minister could technically ignore the results of these elections. The Court rejected that argument as window-dressing, concluding that linking appointment to a democratic mandate, be it direct or indirect, changes the fundamental character of the Senate. Changes of this sort, given their significance, can only be achieved pursuant to the 7/50 rule.The Court bolstered this conclusion by adding that the constitution protects the “entire process by which Senators are 'selected.'” This is where things get tricky. Strong arguments have been advanced in favour of why the Senate should not be elected. On that issue, we take no position. However, it is surely the case that consultation as a general principle should be encouraged; we live in an era of transparency and our current selection process is anything but.An elected Senate may not be the way forward, but there are other alternatives. An independent committee that makes recommendations based on clear criteria and free of political considerations, along the lines that others, including Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, have previously proposed, would be a welcome improvement.On the one hand, such a proposal is consistent with the Senate's status as an unelected chamber of sober second thought; indeed, it might even turn this abstract notion into a practical reality.  On the other hand, the Supreme Court tells us that the constitution shields the “entire process” of selection from federal unilateralism. This inconsistency is surely the most disappointing aspect of this decision. One hopes that in shutting the door on the Prime Minister's proposals, the Court would have cleared a path for more modest alternatives. No such guidance was provided. To the contrary, the Court sent contradictory signals.What we do now know is that abolition requires unanimity, a daunting threshold that will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve; that consultative processes of any kind likely require 7/50; that term limits, no matter their duration, also require 7/50 as anything less than tenure until age 75 may impair a Senator's capacity to engage in sober second thought; and that our politicians, with the exception of the NDP, will not touch the constitution with a ten foot pole. Yet 95 per cent of Canadians do not support the status quo.In its enthusiasm to declare the Harper proposals unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has left us with a distinctively Canadian form of gridlock.Matthew J. Burns is a second year law student and David Schneiderman is a Professor of Law at the University of Toronto.