The ongoing debate surrounding changing the composition of the Judicial Appointments Committee has reignited the political flames, but while politicians are busy wringing their hands and trying to control, it seems that ordinary citizens are being left behind - waiting for faster, more reliable, and more accessible justice.
The influence of political power struggles on the appointment of judges
The political debate surrounding changing the composition of the Judicial Appointments Committee has become a highly publicized battle, but it should be remembered that these power struggles do not actually affect the quality of the judges. Every judge elected to office is bound first and foremost by the law, not by the politician who appointed him. The assumption that political appointments will affect the professional judgment of judges is inconsistent with the reality of an independent legal system, which is conducted out of loyalty to the principles of the law and not out of political subordination.
The issue of the constitution and the constitutional court
The political debate sometimes focuses on deep constitutional questions, but the real solution lies in a clear decision – the enactment of a constitution and the establishment of a constitutional court. As long as such a step is not taken, the legal system will continue to deal with different interpretations of constitutional principles, and the debates will continue without a stable normative foundation. The polemic surrounding the current specific law is, therefore, devoid of any real meaning for the citizen, as it does not change the way legal decisions are made.
The appeal system as a public protection mechanism
The likelihood that three judicial instances – peace, district, and supreme – together with the High Court and the expanded panels, will all make the same legal or factual error is negligible. This guarantees the public an effective review and protection mechanism, which is independent of the composition of the Judicial Appointments Committee. Moreover, the law that was enacted will only apply from the next Knesset, the composition of which is not yet known, and therefore these changes have no real impact on the daily lives of citizens at this time.
The question of attorney representation on the committee
The fact that representatives of the Bar Association are absent from the new committee is a clear statement of the lack of confidence in the institution itself. However, the proposed solution – to appoint lawyers who do not represent the Bar – is a personal and not a systemic solution. Professional representation is necessary, but it must be independent, and not motivated by political considerations or external interests. The concern is that the appointment processes will lose the balance that existed between them and the professional bodies until now.
The professional model of appointments in the public system
In the civil service, the IDF, the police, and the defense establishment – all senior appointments are made on a professional basis and without the direct involvement of elected officials. It is appropriate that the appointment of judges, at least up to the Supreme Court, be carried out by professional committees headed by senior judges. This method ensures independence and the purity of considerations in decision-making. Transferring discretion to a political echelon could harm public trust and the stability of the entire system.
A call for change in the legal system from a civil perspective
Ultimately, anyone celebrating any political victory today may be disappointed when they discover that the judges they appoint will judge according to the law and the evidence alone, even if this is not in line with political positions.
Instead of fighting over appointment mechanisms, politicians should direct their energy to the real questions:
How long does a criminal proceeding last?
How long does an investigation take?
When will an ordinary citizen receive a proper response from the system?
Here lies the legal revolution that should be promoted – a revolution centered on the citizen and not the political echelon.
Yaakov, you are wrong and misleading. We are already seeing politicization penetrating the police (a clown police chief) and the army (a chief of staff who rushed to fire a spokesman an hour after his appointment). And don't say there is no impact. The same thing will happen with the judges. The police today are motivated by loyalty to the criminal, the ministers and all members of the right-wing parties are like the dogs on the dashboard (nodding endlessly without a drop of self-reflection and woe to those who dare). For 76 years the justice system worked properly! Why fix what isn't broken?
Jacob Borovsky
As a reminder, in the US and other countries, judges are elected.
by heads of state and arrive at a hearing in the Senate,
Is this wrong?
It was the judges' clique that brought the decision about the change upon them, we need to give it a chance.
How can the High Court discuss a law that is contrary to interests???
As Borowski's grandson, I appeal to you to think again.
Shabbat Shalom
Moses
I have a few things to say to Attorney Borovsky.
The current situation for selecting judges is a majority of judges + a biased and unrepresentative political bureau.
Unfortunately, the mild change we made is not enough.
A condition should have been set that family members could not be accepted for judging. To this day, it is a friend-bringing-friend system… keep it for me and I will keep it for you… the committee chooses members from the ranks of colleagues and so on. This is wrong.
Appeal courts have not proven themselves in most cases, God forbid, to invalidate a decision made by a close relative or family member. There is a judicial system, but justice is far from it, and unfortunately this is often the case. Lawyers remain silent, God forbid, revenge will not come… This is the situation as it is.
Throughout the world, the people are the sovereign and it is their representatives who appoint and oversee the appointment of judges.
Whether through hearings for senior appointments, whether through oversight of the implementation of legislation to punish in rulings, or through appointments that reflect the line outlined by the president-elect (as is the case in the US).
Nowhere is there a situation where judges sit together with their members of the Bar Association on a committee for appointing judges - no one elected either of them, and together they are the majority on the committee and appoint using a member-bringer system with zero transparency and zero oversight by elected officials over the appointment processes.
This must end.
The dictatorship in the Getziya must end.
Dear Mr. Borovsky, the system for appointing judges in Israel is a disgrace. Everything is conducted in private chambers among themselves, in collusion. In the United States, the President of the United States appoints the judges, and that's how it should be in Israel as well.