3 ms·

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 Co

by 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.

by cma 4y ago

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.