3 ms·

It's oxymoronic to say that removing final authority to an unelected body that effectively chooses their own successors "strengthens democracy" in some metaphys

It's oxymoronic to say that removing final authority to an unelected body that effectively chooses their own successors "strengthens democracy" in some metaphysical sense. The logical implication is that an unelected self-perpetuating supreme court in absolute control of the country would be the be the strongest democracy of all.

curiousllama 4y ago
I’m not familiar with Israeli politics or government, but it’s certainly not oximoronic. Strengthens democracy != is itself democratic Eg, the US requiring a supermajority for impeachment is antidemocratic (the minority decides), but it strengthens democracy (because it shouldn’t be done by one side alone). This is a pretty core principle of democratic government
cma 4y ago
Is this even true that they chose their own replacements? > Since 1953, Israel has selected its judges through a diverse committee composed of three Supreme Court justices, two government ministers, two members of the Knesset, and two members of the Israel Bar Association. To appoint a Supreme Court justice, a seven-vote majority of the nine-member committee is required, which means that no group can act alone. Judges can veto what the politicians want, and the politicians can veto what the judges want. This has led to a system of consensus-building and bargaining that produces judges who are for the most part perceived as centrists. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/end-israeli-democracy https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/end-israeli-democracy https://archive.is/evodh https://archive.is/evodh Does that not apply to the Supreme Court, only other judiciary?
- slavboj 4y ago
  The three judicial appointees can veto any selection, and are by far the most cohesive and only long-lived subgroup of that panel. In practice they run the show.
  - cma 4y ago
    Having a veto is very different than you described it. The non-judicial side does too even if their terms are shorter.
    - nhchris 4y ago
      But if the judges veto, their power is, if anything, strengthened - it keeps the supreme court in their hands. I.e. they only share power with judges of their choice, or no-one. And they can easily wait-out short-term politicians and get the appointments they want with their successors.
      - cma 4y ago
        Their power is strengthened as compared to simply choosing their own successors as was claimed? I'm not sure it is a great system, but America has stuff like the court packing scheme that this does seem to at least prevent.
        nhchris 4y ago
        > strengthened as compared to simply choosing their own successors as was claimed? No, compared to cooperating with the appointment of replacement members.
woodruffw 4y ago
> The logical implication is that an unelected self-perpetuating supreme court in absolute control of the country would be the be the strongest democracy of all. No: we’re talking about a judicial branch that exists within an elective system of government. The logical extension of that is not dictatorship. We can discard metaphysics: independent judiciaries strengthen democracy by limiting the ability of executive and legislative authorities to undermine their own mandate to govern.
- slavboj 4y ago
  Again, they are self-selecting. No one gets to vote on their replacements, in practice no one gets to vote on the people who vote on their replacements. It's crazy to talk about "empirically strengthening democracy" without recourse to the actual functioning of the actual supreme court. Just because someone writes a paper complaining about the Polish government firing holdovers from a literal totalitarian regime, or noting that communist regimes usually gut all organs of government when they take over, you don't get to extrapolate to wildly different circumstances and say "thank god no one gets to vote on this, it would be Very Dangerous For Our Democracy."
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    You’ve repeated this, but everything I can find online indicates that Israel’s Supreme Court is appointed by the president, after candidate selection by a committee. Some of the Supreme Court justices are on the committee, but they don’t form a majority (they seem to have 3 of 9 votes.) Is it the perfect, ideal judicial selection process? Almost certainly not. But it’s not incestuous or unaccountable in the way you’re claiming.
    - slavboj 4y ago
      The 3 can veto any appointment since a supermajority is required for nomination, and they typically vote in unison as they are the only cohesive group on the panel due to 75 years of accreted groupthink (ie the supreme court members only allow the appointment of candidates that will get along with them). It's absolutely unaccountable.

curiousllama 4y ago

I’m not familiar with Israeli politics or government, but it’s certainly not oximoronic. Strengthens democracy != is itself democratic Eg, the US requiring a supermajority for impeachment is antidemocratic (the minority decides), but it strengthens democracy (because it shouldn’t be done by one side alone). This is a pretty core principle of democratic government

cma 4y ago

Is this even true that they chose their own replacements? > Since 1953, Israel has selected its judges through a diverse committee composed of three Supreme Court justices, two government ministers, two members of the Knesset, and two members of the Israel Bar Association. To appoint a Supreme Court justice, a seven-vote majority of the nine-member committee is required, which means that no group can act alone. Judges can veto what the politicians want, and the politicians can veto what the judges want. This has led to a system of consensus-building and bargaining that produces judges who are for the most part perceived as centrists. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/end-israeli-democracy https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/end-israeli-democracy https://archive.is/evodh https://archive.is/evodh Does that not apply to the Supreme Court, only other judiciary?

slavboj 4y ago
The three judicial appointees can veto any selection, and are by far the most cohesive and only long-lived subgroup of that panel. In practice they run the show.
- cma 4y ago
  Having a veto is very different than you described it. The non-judicial side does too even if their terms are shorter.
  - nhchris 4y ago
    But if the judges veto, their power is, if anything, strengthened - it keeps the supreme court in their hands. I.e. they only share power with judges of their choice, or no-one. And they can easily wait-out short-term politicians and get the appointments they want with their successors.
    - cma 4y ago
      Their power is strengthened as compared to simply choosing their own successors as was claimed? I'm not sure it is a great system, but America has stuff like the court packing scheme that this does seem to at least prevent.
      - nhchris 4y ago
        > strengthened as compared to simply choosing their own successors as was claimed? No, compared to cooperating with the appointment of replacement members.

woodruffw 4y ago

> The logical implication is that an unelected self-perpetuating supreme court in absolute control of the country would be the be the strongest democracy of all. No: we’re talking about a judicial branch that exists within an elective system of government. The logical extension of that is not dictatorship. We can discard metaphysics: independent judiciaries strengthen democracy by limiting the ability of executive and legislative authorities to undermine their own mandate to govern.

slavboj 4y ago
Again, they are self-selecting. No one gets to vote on their replacements, in practice no one gets to vote on the people who vote on their replacements. It's crazy to talk about "empirically strengthening democracy" without recourse to the actual functioning of the actual supreme court. Just because someone writes a paper complaining about the Polish government firing holdovers from a literal totalitarian regime, or noting that communist regimes usually gut all organs of government when they take over, you don't get to extrapolate to wildly different circumstances and say "thank god no one gets to vote on this, it would be Very Dangerous For Our Democracy."
- woodruffw 4y ago
  You’ve repeated this, but everything I can find online indicates that Israel’s Supreme Court is appointed by the president, after candidate selection by a committee. Some of the Supreme Court justices are on the committee, but they don’t form a majority (they seem to have 3 of 9 votes.) Is it the perfect, ideal judicial selection process? Almost certainly not. But it’s not incestuous or unaccountable in the way you’re claiming.
  - slavboj 4y ago
    The 3 can veto any appointment since a supermajority is required for nomination, and they typically vote in unison as they are the only cohesive group on the panel due to 75 years of accreted groupthink (ie the supreme court members only allow the appointment of candidates that will get along with them). It's absolutely unaccountable.