Choose the best judge for the job
|
The Judicial Appointments Committee is due to choose three new Supreme Court justices today. The selection has already been delayed for a long time, with the result that the court has been below its normal complement of 15 justices.
If not for recent political and economic events, the
selection of the justices would have received much more media
attention. Since the court does not deal solely with a technical
interpretation of the law, but also rules on the constitutionality of
Knesset laws and on controversial ideological issues, the choice of
justices has turned into an issue of utmost importance to the public.
Nevertheless, the appointments committee's proceedings are kept secret,
and the justices' judicial philosophies remain hidden from the public
eye.
It was newly elected Kadima Chairwoman Tzipi Livni who, as justice minister, realized the importance of the court's make-up in shaping the face of Israeli society. Livni fought for the appointment of Prof. Ruth Gavison, for example, due to the latter's views on Israel's identity as a Jewish and democratic state. When she failed to secure a majority for this appointment, Livni prevented the committee from convening for a lengthy period.
The selection of Supreme Court justices has traditionally not been at the top of Israel's political agenda. Still, during the Kadima primary, both Livni and Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz expressed their belief that the court should not intercede in sensitive political and security matters. The court itself has shown considerable restraint on these matters. But its involvement in issues such as the route of the separation fence, or the constitutionality of the law that prevents Palestinians married to Israelis from gaining permanent residency, has incurred the wrath of many a politician.
But for all the importance of the justices' views on sensitive issues of principle, there is no doubt that under current circumstances, when the justices are mired in a surplus of work, the primary considerations for the appointment of new justices must be their mastery of as many branches of the law as possible and their ability to deal efficiently with the plethora of cases that now flood the Supreme Court.
Ultimately, it is vital to establish a national appellate court, so the Supreme Court can focus on overarching issues of principle - a reform supported by Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch. But until this necessary reform is enacted, professional efficacy and judicial experience must be given preference over raw intellectual ability. Thus it seems unlikely that the committee will unite this time behind any of the seven candidates from academia.
The choice is therefore focusing on 10 district court judges. Among the leading candidates are David Cheshin, deputy president of the Jerusalem District Court, who has specialized in dealing with "mega-cases," and could thus make a vital contribution to the court's handling of torts; Uzi Vogelman of the Tel Aviv District Court, who specializes in administrative and civil law; Dvora Berliner, deputy president of the Tel Aviv District Court, whose specialty is criminal law, and who demonstrated great efficiency in plowing through cases during her term as a temporary justice; Neal Hendel, deputy president of the Be'er Sheva District Court, who is an expert in both American and Jewish law; and Dr. Amiram Benyamini of the Tel Aviv District Court, who deals with both civil and criminal law, and has proved his ability to handle complex cases. The latter two have not served as temporary justices on the Supreme Court.
Since the start of this month, appointing a justice has required a majority of seven of the nine committee members. This means that cooperation will be needed among the different groups on the panel - the three Supreme Court justices, headed by the president; two cabinet members, including the justice minister (who chairs the committee); two Knesset members; and two representatives of the Bar Association. Currently, the panel members are at odds over all the candidates, so it is hard to know whether they will actually succeed in appointing any justices, despite the urgency of the matter.
In light of this reality, committee members must remember that focusing on practical considerations is an option. They must free themselves from their personal sympathies and preferences,and simply choose the best judges - the ones who can advance the Supreme Court's work, further the law's development and protect individual rights.
It was newly elected Kadima Chairwoman Tzipi Livni who, as justice minister, realized the importance of the court's make-up in shaping the face of Israeli society. Livni fought for the appointment of Prof. Ruth Gavison, for example, due to the latter's views on Israel's identity as a Jewish and democratic state. When she failed to secure a majority for this appointment, Livni prevented the committee from convening for a lengthy period.
The selection of Supreme Court justices has traditionally not been at the top of Israel's political agenda. Still, during the Kadima primary, both Livni and Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz expressed their belief that the court should not intercede in sensitive political and security matters. The court itself has shown considerable restraint on these matters. But its involvement in issues such as the route of the separation fence, or the constitutionality of the law that prevents Palestinians married to Israelis from gaining permanent residency, has incurred the wrath of many a politician.
But for all the importance of the justices' views on sensitive issues of principle, there is no doubt that under current circumstances, when the justices are mired in a surplus of work, the primary considerations for the appointment of new justices must be their mastery of as many branches of the law as possible and their ability to deal efficiently with the plethora of cases that now flood the Supreme Court.
Ultimately, it is vital to establish a national appellate court, so the Supreme Court can focus on overarching issues of principle - a reform supported by Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch. But until this necessary reform is enacted, professional efficacy and judicial experience must be given preference over raw intellectual ability. Thus it seems unlikely that the committee will unite this time behind any of the seven candidates from academia.
The choice is therefore focusing on 10 district court judges. Among the leading candidates are David Cheshin, deputy president of the Jerusalem District Court, who has specialized in dealing with "mega-cases," and could thus make a vital contribution to the court's handling of torts; Uzi Vogelman of the Tel Aviv District Court, who specializes in administrative and civil law; Dvora Berliner, deputy president of the Tel Aviv District Court, whose specialty is criminal law, and who demonstrated great efficiency in plowing through cases during her term as a temporary justice; Neal Hendel, deputy president of the Be'er Sheva District Court, who is an expert in both American and Jewish law; and Dr. Amiram Benyamini of the Tel Aviv District Court, who deals with both civil and criminal law, and has proved his ability to handle complex cases. The latter two have not served as temporary justices on the Supreme Court.
Since the start of this month, appointing a justice has required a majority of seven of the nine committee members. This means that cooperation will be needed among the different groups on the panel - the three Supreme Court justices, headed by the president; two cabinet members, including the justice minister (who chairs the committee); two Knesset members; and two representatives of the Bar Association. Currently, the panel members are at odds over all the candidates, so it is hard to know whether they will actually succeed in appointing any justices, despite the urgency of the matter.
In light of this reality, committee members must remember that focusing on practical considerations is an option. They must free themselves from their personal sympathies and preferences,and simply choose the best judges - the ones who can advance the Supreme Court's work, further the law's development and protect individual rights.
Add your comment