Introduction
Supreme Court Judges Selection
One of the most elite private clubs in Israel is the Supreme Court. It is mainly dominated by the so called secular Ashkenazim. This is an old boys’ network that has excluded religious judges and Sephardim. In Israel, democracy has been undermined by the current ruling system. There has been the essence of degrading the justices who were in the former Israel court system.
These people have come across all forms of frustrations during their term of service. Due to their religious affiliations, their points of view have been marginalized (Toobin 35). In addition, there has not been any form of appreciation for the kind of work done by the former judges during the classical times.
The Existing Law
This current law in Israel is dominated by the secular Ashkenazim. These groups of people are against the legislation of a new law. Their approach is so rigid because it does not allow room for public debate and is very self selective. This provides the court with a high susceptibility of marginalizing the vast segment of citizens of the country Israel (Martin 120).
The process of choosing a judge involves nine people who make up a committee. Of these nine people, three are members of the current court plus a president, a few congressional leaders and one representative of the Israel Bar Association. These people are involved in the selection of the Supreme Court judge.
Their actions are not to be made public since they are always held privately. The process is done behind closed doors hence there is neither a debate nor a public oversight during this process. The self selective process shows that the selected person has judicial power reflective of all the members of the high court system.
Sadly in Israel, the Judges appointments are not subject to the parliament or the so called “Knesset”. The court is dominated by judicial activism. This means that those in the high court can just create laws that are imaginary which can implement within the shortest time possible (Toobin 40).
The amendment or Proposed Law of Israel
This proposed law is to provide a transparent procedure in the processes of appointing Supreme Court judges as opposed to the current law. This would involve open approval by the Parliamentary or “Knesset’s” constitution. This procedure also involves the law and justice committee that follows a public hearing. During the public hearing, the candidates would be asked questions relating to their views and opinions on politics.
US and UK Methods of Choosing High Court Judges
In the US, the high court judge is appointed for life by the president himself; of course this has to be by the consent of the members of the Senate. There has to be an approval by the senate. Such approval may involve good conduct and behavior of the candidate. Before approval, the candidates undergo an intense grilling process on political and social matters (Parcel 14-22).
The only thing that can result into the removal of the judges is their impeachment, death or resignation. In the United States, the Supreme Court’s decision is final and the majority will always win. The United States of America has one disadvantage.
They always create a bias argument along different party affiliations. The priority is given to the candidate who is loyal to the reigning political party or the person affiliated to the political party in power (Gordon 1).
In the United Kingdom, three primary rules are used in the process of interpretation of the law. These are mischief, golden and the literal rules. These rules are related to the interpretation of words in the process of giving out judgments. On the other hand, the America uses the statute text in reading out the ordinary word in the statute.
Other unique qualities of United Kingdom laws are in the issue constitutional reform bill. The UK has been in the verge of whether to consider the legislative changes in the reforms. This would lead to the replacement in the Lord Chancellor’s office.
Hence, there would be a possibility to establish a supreme court in the United Kingdom. The UK though has not considered the kind of federal appointment that is exhibited by the United States.
Comparison of the Items Discussed
The court should be a center for varied view points of the judicial system. In the current system operating in Israel, there is no freedom at all for democracy. The Supreme Court has sidelined itself from the people it is supposed to be protecting.
In any case the government is ruling the citizens with unfair methods; the citizens would not have any place to run to. Due to their religious affiliations, they are more disadvantaged by the laws. The democratic values of the people of Israel have been undermined by the current judicial system.
The proposed amendment although seems fair, no one knows if it will really pick up quickly. It is the law that is being used by most countries around the world. When the law is employed it will nullify the status of dictatorship governance that is reigning and the citizens would then be able to enjoy their democratic rights.
Unlike in America, Israel is being ruled by a small group of elite people. These people are involved in making the decision of the person who is supposed to sit on the bench. In US, there is a stage for vigorous debate by the public. This always helps to know more about the nominees rather than having a person who has been selected against the will of the majority.
The United Kingdom on the other hand is looking forward to having such a system as the United States. Theirs would involve creation of a legislative system that will allow the incorporation of the Supreme Court as it is in the United States. The only difference is that the Congress in the United Kingdom has involved the procedure for selection in the federal trial courts and appellate before (Eliezrie 1).
Findings
The discussion on Supreme Court judge selection has enlightened the people on the differences that exist in the selection methods at the Supreme Court level. This shows the form of versatility that exists in the high court judge selection procedures. Different countries have their own methods.
Some methods are fair while some are not. The issue in Israel is so serious that the nation should seek out ways to accelerate the new amendment process.
In any case such procedure can be adopted by countries like Unite States of America and the UK; the result would be very chaotic. The Supreme Court in Israel depicts the form of rule that can be associated with dictatorship.
It is so unfortunate that learned people are undermined by their religious affiliations. It is important that Israel’s choice of coming up with supreme high court judges change for the benefit of all citizens.
The Kind of Versatility that exists in different countries is so strange that it cannot be overcome by globalization.
The essence of influencing other countries to adopt more fair ways is hard because the countries have their own republican rights hence the businesses of the countries are spearheaded by their own constitution. It always calls for an external force to bring change when a country cannot make a decision. But for Israel, the issues of religion have been a challenging factor since time immemorial.
Works Cited
Eliezrie, David. “Israel Democracy Endangered by the Supreme Court”. The Jerusalem Post, 4 Mar., 2003. Web. Print.
Gordon, Evelyn. “Criticism of the Israel’s Supreme Court”. Azure, 23 Sept., 2010. Web. Print.
Martin, Jacqueline. Legal System of the English. London: Hodder Arnold, 2005. Print.
Parcel, Richard. Supreme Court Role in America. Texas: Westview Press, 2011. Print.
Toobin, Jeffrey. The Nine: Inside the Supreme Court. New York: Doubleday, 2007. Print.