T. Belman. I don’t like it. I see no reason or precedent for the Judges to be involved in appointing the selection committee..
Compromise would limit both the courts’ and the politicians’ influence on the Judicial Selection Committee.
Supreme CourtOlivier Fitoussi/Flash90
A compromise proposal has been submitted on the issue of the Judicial Selection Committee, one of the most controversial aspects of the government’s planned judicial reforms, Kan Reshet Bet reported this morning (Sunday).
Negotiations between the coalition and opposition on the judicial reforms continue at the President’s Residence in Jerusalem under the auspices of President Isaac Herzog.
Under the current system, the Supreme Court and the judicial system have an outsized influence over the selection of future justices, a system which allows the justices to select their successors with little democratic input. The reforms proposed by Justice Minister Yariv Levin would give the executive branch greater say over the selection of justices in a manner more consistent with the manner in which justices are appointed in the US. Opponents of the reform warn that giving politicians the power to select would politicize the courts and jeopardize their independence.
Under the compromise proposal, neither justices nor politicians will serve on the judicial selection committee. Instead, the politicians and judges will choose their own representatives to the committee, according to certain criteria. However, the coalition will still get to choose the majority of representatives on the committee.
Related articles:
- ‘We’re done being suckers’
- ‘The left betrayed the State of Israel’
- Tens of thousands at pro-judicial reform demonstrations
- Demonstrators block highway, burn draft notices in Tel Aviv
According to the proposal, the coalition and the opposition will be able to choose committee members from different categories – academics, researchers, retired judges, senior lawyers, etc. And the judges will also be able to choose committee members from those categories.
One issue which remains in contention is whether the coalition would be able to select more representatives for the Judicial Selection Committee than the opposition. The representatives would remain on the committee for a certain time and therefore not remain beholden to those who selected them. In this way, the influence of politicians and of the sitting justices on the committee’s decisions would be indirect.
Peloni 1986: Since compromise seems inevitable on the government’s proposed judicial reform which has encountered such opposition, I thought that the compromisers might be interested in the Canadian approach because it does allow legal representation as well as judicial influence. I do apologise if you thought I approved of the way Canadian judges are chosen. I don’t. That system does not prevent the appointment of partisan hacks. One of them, indeed, is to go before the Canadian judicial council because, after she became a judge, she continued to make prejudicial remarks against the Premier of Ontario who is Conservative while she is Liberal.
If you opt for choice of judges by election, you also have problems. First: low voter turn-out. This means that well-organised small groups can get a candidate elected who does not represent the majority of electors. Second: elections are expensive and candidates either have to be wealthy or have access to wealthy donors who will expect the candidate to return favours. Third: candidates have to run on a platform. And I have difficulty in visualising what kind of platform judicial candidates would use. A pledge to support the constitution? Throw more crooks in jail? Keep the politicians honest?
Finally, there are the difficulties with handling the ballots– difficulties we all know about.
As I said, no system is perfect and short of Divine intervention (not likely), we have, somehow, to keep on keeping on.
Sebastien: It’s been years since I read Herbert Storing’s compilation, entitled ‘The Anti-Federalist’. There is a section, if memory serves me correctly, in the book devoted to a critique of the proposed supreme court. The writers predicted that, no matter what limits the constitution imposed on the court, it would take to itself the power to interpret the constitution and would interpret it to serve the powerful and rich interests. A sort of deep-state analysis before there was a deep state. I believe that Storing provided an index; so the specific references to the court would be easy to locate.
@pdale5
The issue is not fairness, depending upon the definition of that word which you might care to imply. The issue is that the people should have some input upon the judicial ideology which is being put in place to judge their laws and institute penalties for those who break the laws. It isn’t even about Right vs Left or Conservative vs Liberal. It is about having judges who are chosen directly by the political class. This provides a barrier between the people and judges being chosen, but it also allows the people the opportunity to express their disgust when a given judge with a given ideology is appointed which does not represent the will of the people. The people can not terminate the judge in question of course, but they can utilize their vote to replace those elected representatives which installed such an unacceptable choice to such an important position. It is about having some aspect of reciprocity, and when an unelected body chooses the content and character of the court, as the Canadian system and Israeli system each do, the people have no recourse when the ideology of the judicial system is steered away from what the people judge to be acceptable.
Also, I would suggest that the court and legal fraternity should have no say in who makes up the members of the court, as it invites self dealing and an unopposed ideology within the court to the degree that the these unelected members have a control over the process of choosing the court members. In any event, these are my own thoughts on the matter, but I think they are fairly supported.
I do appreciate that, correct me if I am in error, you would prefer a legal specialist for the role being chosen which would be best chosen by other legal professionals who could best assess the expertise of the candidates in question. I see this as being less important than that they serve the people and that they hold an ideology which is acceptable to the people, and that the people should have a recourse to inject a penalty on those who are making these important choices, should they choose contrary to the public’s interest – as judged by the people themselves.
pdale I have read Federalist #10. Not familiar with the Anti-Federalist. What passages, specifically, are you referring to?
Sebastien: It seems you will also have to join me at the starting line– there’s lots of room.
Why do you say that election of judges or their appointment by elected officials is ‘fairest’? From what I have read about the American electoral system and the challenges brought by disgruntled candidates, fair is not the first adjective that comes to mind when electoral choice is discussed.
You further say that the government continually changes and clashing interests balance out. Yet, you also mention the ‘Deep State’. Deep-state analysis assumes, I think, that no matter what the electoral result, the interests of the Deep State will prevail over whomever the electors choose. The problem is that there is no balance. That argument is, I believe, the one used to explain Donald Trump’s difficulties as president.
I have read Federalist # 10; I have also read the Anti-Federalist. If you haven’t read it, you would find it very instructive.
Moving interview
https://news.sky.com/video/father-and-husband-of-british-israelis-killed-in-west-bank-calls-for-peace-12858882
Some time ago (in fact a week) I drew attention to the only time when Antisemitism was roundly defeated.
The response of Mr Zorn was to attack THAT alliance of Marxism and Jews.
Claiming Communist cannot mean Zionist.
So Zorn define Zionism.
“The problem is the non-Zionism of the judges who are in there,”
@pdale Which puts us back at the starting line. The problem boils down to Deep State vs. the people. The fairest system would be one where judges are elected or appointed by elected officials for limited periods of time and can be recalled. There is no such thing as a non-partisan judge even if they sometimes bite the hand that feeds them but the composition of the government continually changes so the clashing self-interests balance out. That, is the genius of the American system of government.
Sebastien: I was talking procedure to get round some of the criticisms of those who oppose the current government proposals. I did not say that the Canadian approach was perfect; it isn’t and you do have partisan nincompoops sitting on the bench. No human system is perfect and if you want to pervert a system that was working surprisingly well, as the present Canadian government does, you will get partisan hacks.
@pdale A less rosy take on Canada’s judicial system.
https://mjps.ssmu.ca/2020/11/09/all-judges-are-non-partisan-but-are-some-more-non-partisan-than-others/
Reference in the article is made to the system of judicial appointment used in the U.S. Why anyone would suggest this as an answer to this problem is beyond me. The US system now puts political ideology first and legal knowledge second.
May I suggest that, instead of trying to copy the U.S. system, consideration be given to the procedure used to appoint Canadian judges. The system works as follows:
1. An official called the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs is appointed to administer the judicial appointing process. He does not have a vote to select a judge. He is an administrative officer.
2. There are commissions for each province set up composed of seven members: one chosen by the provincial bar association; one chosen by the federal bar association in the province; one chosen by the Chief Justice of each province; one chosen by the provincial minister of justice and three chosen by the government to represent the public
3. Anyone can apply to represent the public and you do not require legal training.
4. Anyone interested in becoming a judge sends an expression of interest to the Commissioner who then sends out the application forms. Once the completed forms are completed and returned, the Commissioner sends these forms to the appropriate committee for a detailed review and recommendation. The committee must submit three suitable names to the Commissioner.
5. The Commissioner then sends the three names with the supporting documentation to the Minister of Justice who must choose a nominee from this list. The Minister may make further inquiries if he deems it necessary.
6. If there is a vacancy for a provincial chief justice, the documentation is sent to the prime minister who then chooses from the list of three names.
7. The nominee chosen is then appointed by the Governor-General, as the King’s representative, on the recommendation of the cabinet.
Canada is of course a federal country; hence the reference to the provinces. With some suitable adjustments to reflect the non-federal Israeli political system, this procedure can answer most of the issues arising from the attempt to reform the judicial system in Israel.
Sebastien, you are 100% right. The presently sitting judges must be replaced now and not at some unknown time down the road. Then we need to determine if they should be tried for treason or the likes. They need gag orders now.
But selecting new judges is so piece-meal and so far down the road. The problem is the non-Zionism of the judges who are in there, as well as the AG, and their unlimited and unchecked power to make or countermand policy in any area, not to mention slapping terrorists on the wrist with short sentences.
The judges who are there need to be replaced NOW because their judgement is bad and the wolf is already at the door.