3 ms·

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

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.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    It sounds like it’s very accountable: if things are as bad as you say they are, then the other 6 voting members can form a coalition and override the 3 you claim vote as a bloc. This is arguably more accountable than the SCOTUS process in the US, where a hair-thin congressional majority can railroad a justice into office for their natural life.

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.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  It sounds like it’s very accountable: if things are as bad as you say they are, then the other 6 voting members can form a coalition and override the 3 you claim vote as a bloc. This is arguably more accountable than the SCOTUS process in the US, where a hair-thin congressional majority can railroad a justice into office for their natural life.