SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
judicial reforms
The US Has No Business Telling Mexico Not to Reform Its Judiciary
The United States might prioritize putting its own house in order and follow Mexico’s example to confront the unelected far-right ideologues who have hijacked U.S. democracy from the bench with total impunity.
Oct 02, 2024
This week Mexico's former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, or AMLO, handed over the reins to Claudia Sheinbaum, a close ally in his Morena party and the country's first female head of state. While López Obrador is leaving office with soaring approval ratings, and has overseen significant reductions in poverty and unemployment, recent articles and op-eds use terms like "authoritarian" and "autocratic" to describe his legacy.
The criticism of AMLO and Morena’s supposed "authoritarian bent" has centered on a recently approved package of constitutional reforms to Mexico's judicial system. The Editorial Board of The Washington Post declared that “at stake are judicial independence and the rule of law,” and The Economist warned that “in America’s biggest trading partner the rule of law and democracy are under attack.” On August 22, U.S. ambassador to Mexico Ken Salazar called the reforms a “major risk to the functioning of Mexico’s democracy.” Shortly afterwards, Canada’s ambassador also criticized the proposal, prompting López Obrador to suspend relations with both embassies.
The reforms, in particular the establishment of popular elections for judges and supreme court justices, will profoundly shake up the Mexican judiciary. However, there is little basis for alleging that they represent a threat to democracy. Whatever the drawbacks or merits of the measures, the United States—where an ultra-conservative Supreme Court has been plagued by egregious conflict of interest scandals—has no business interfering in Mexico’s domestic affairs, let alone a democratic and constitutional process of reform.
With the additional constitutional reforms proposed including measures to enshrine a ban on genetically modified corn, hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), and open-pit mining, a democratically elected supreme court willing to uphold such measures represents a genuine threat to big agrobusiness, fossil fuel capital, and extractive enterprises on both sides of the border.
More troublingly, attacks against Mexico’s judicial reform appeared to have more to do with disciplining the incoming Sheinbaum administration and undermining the progressive elements of her party’s agenda than defending democracy and the rule of law.
The judicial package was just one of 20 constitutional reform initiatives submitted to the Mexican congress by AMLO in February. It comes after key measures of the governing Morena party’s agenda were blocked by the country’s high court. The reform provisions include measures to expedite case resolution; enforce gender parity; open supreme court sessions to the public; cap judicial salaries; keep challenged laws or policies active until ruled unconstitutional; and establish bodies to supervise and sanction judicial officials, as well as a less savory move to expand the list of crimes that warrant mandatory pretrial incarceration.
U.S. objections, however, are focused on one key transformation: the democratic election of the judiciary.
Until the reform, Mexico’s federal judges and magistrates, as well as local circuit and district judges, were appointed through a process overseen by the Consejo de la Judicatura Federal (Federal Judiciary Council), an unelected arm of the judicial branch. The supreme court is currently composed of 11 justices including the president of the court who oversees and participates in the plenary. They meet as a full group and in two five-member chambers; the justices are nominated by the president of Mexico, approved by the senate, and serve 15-year terms.
Under the newly approved judicial overhaul, federal judges and magistrates will be popularly elected for nine-year terms, with the possibility of reelection. The same process will take place at the state level for circuit and district courts. Supreme court justices (referred to as ministers in Mexico) and Federal Electoral Tribunal magistrates will also be popularly elected. The number of supreme court ministers will be cut to nine and their terms reduced to 12 years, while the two chambers would be eliminated in favor of the single body.
Contrary to claims of executive overreach, the reforms stipulate that candidates who meet the necessary qualifications be proposed in equal proportions by all three branches of government, then narrowed down via a lottery system. The first elections will take place in June 2025 for the supreme court, Federal Electoral Tribunal, and half of the federal judiciary. By 2027, all sitting magistrates and judges will be up for election.
Throughout AMLO’s presidency (2018–2024), Mexico’s supreme court has served as a backstop against some of the government’s more ambitious reforms, sometimes intervening on behalf of powerful business interests. In a 3-5 decision in March 2021, for example, a supreme court chamber struck down a recently passed Electricity Industry Law for privileging the Comisión Federal de Electricidad (Federal Electricity Commission), a public utility, over private sector investors. On two occasions, the court overturned electoral reforms which, like the judicial reform, sought to restructure national election oversight bodies and elect their authorities by popular vote.
Morena argues that the reforms are intended to root out corruption and nepotism in the judicial system and democratize a historically elitist and authoritarian judicial branch. This argument has merit: Internal studies have found family networks of up to 89 relatives employed in the courts; 53.4% of magistrates and 18% of judges had more than four relatives working in the judicial branch in 2022.
Judicial positions in Mexico are lucrative: That same year, more than 1,000 high-ranking judicial employees were taking in between 430,000 and 518,000 pesos per month, well above $21,500 per month at a time when the monthly minimum wage in most of the country stood below $260.
Sheinbaum has defended the new measures, explaining that rather than consolidate executive power, the reform abdicates it.
“With this reform, the next president is renouncing the power to personally name supreme court justices,” she told the public in a recent social media message. “The president is democratically elected. Deputies and senators are democratically elected. Now, judges, magistrates, and justices will be democratically elected.”
Yet the reforms were met with resistance from powerful corporate interests. The U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce warned that, without significant changes, the “social and economic impacts will be inevitable and devastating.”
In his two-page statement criticizing the measure, U.S. Ambassador Salazar wrote that the proposal “will threaten the historic trade relationship we have built,” while the Canadian embassy declared it was a source of concern for private investors.
Major U.S. outlets including The Washington Post and The New York Times also ran incendiary columns that suggested the measure would undermine governance and endanger trade relations.
Their arguments varied. Some contended that elections would provide an opportunity for organized criminal influence; others warned the reforms represented an authoritarian presidential power grab; some merely raised vague concerns about destabilizing the investment climate. Little evidence backs up these claims. Rather than the contents of the reforms, big business, in Mexico and in the United States, appeared to balk at the restructuring of a system that has generally favored its interests.
Much of the criticism took a misogynist tone. The Post’s August 25 editorial espoused a patronizing and not subtly gendered view of President Sheinbaum’s relationship with López Obrador. It referred to AMLO as “her boss” and “her patron,” as though Mexico’s first female president were a promoted secretary and not a veteran politician and climate scientist with the strongest electoral mandate in Mexican history.
At the same time, the measure drew protest from within the Mexican judiciary, prompting marches, work stoppages, and strikes by judges and court workers. They framed their actions as a struggle against a reckless consolidation of executive power and politicization of the bench by the outgoing president. Advocates for reform dismissed these protests as attempts to retain long-held privileges.
The package faced formal challenges from within the judiciary as well. On August 31, a judge in the state of Morelos—herself a vociferous opponent of the reform—issued an injunction to suspend debate in congress at the behest of a group of magistrates who argue they stand to lose their jobs without due process. Simultaneously, a judge in Chiapas issued another injunction to prevent the measure from advancing to state legislatures for ratification. Hours later, a district court judge suspended both injunctions, permitting the process to move forward.
International financial markets also reacted negatively, perhaps because they find the current corrupt judiciary more friendly to their interests than an election-based system that would demand more accountability to public interest and needs. Morgan Stanley downgraded its investment recommendation for Mexico, and Fitch Ratings expressed concerns that the reforms could negatively impact the country’s corporate investment climate. The Mexican peso, which had fallen significantly following Sheinbaum’s commanding June 2 presidential victory, dropped again as the reforms moved forward in congress.
At a moment of political transition, these market moves send a disturbing message tantamount to blackmail to a fledgling administration with an ambitious agenda for a public sector-led sustainable energy transition. With the additional constitutional reforms proposed including measures to enshrine a ban on genetically modified corn, hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), and open-pit mining, a democratically elected supreme court willing to uphold such measures represents a genuine threat to big agrobusiness, fossil fuel capital, and extractive enterprises on both sides of the border.
Despite this tidal wave of opposition, the reforms passed the Chamber of Deputies on September 4, were approved in the senate on September 10, and were subsequently ratified by a majority of state legislatures, where Morena and its allies hold commanding majorities. On Sunday, September 16, Mexican Independence Day, the president signed them into law. Far from a presidential imposition, their implementation will be the result of Mexico’s constitutionally established democratic process.
Some critics on the left suggest that the reforms do not go far enough, exempting from popular election military tribunal judges and administrative magistrates. In an analysis for the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom, distinguished jurist and human rights advocate Carlos Pérez Vasquez argued: “If the radical democratization of justice is the point of the proposed reform, why not go further, returning to our own history to restore, gradually, the existence of popular juries as a central element of the democratic legitimacy of the justice system?”
Nevertheless, accusations that the reforms will undermine judicial independence and politicize a neutral judiciary ignore the reality that Mexico’s judicial branch is already an active political agent, while charges that the measures represent an authoritarian executive power grab willfully mischaracterize the initiative. The reforms may be imperfect, and they may not address the profound structural obstacles to justice in Mexico, but they represent a legitimate political project with support across the country’s national and local representative bodies.
In a recent column, independent Mexican journalist and political analyst Viri Ríos, a critic of the proposal for judicial elections, dismissed the opposition’s claims that they would put the country on a path to dictatorship.
“Personally, I don’t support the judicial reform, but I’m a democrat and therefore I know that my disagreement doesn’t authorize me to call my opponent authoritarian, much less to use everything in my power to subvert the implementation of their agenda,” she wrote. “In a democracy, losing has consequences. Unfortunately, in Mexico it’s clear that the losers don’t want to accept them.”
That the United States, a nation that combines lifetime Supreme Court appointments with a state-by-state system of local judicial selection in which most hold popular elections for lower court judges, could credibly lecture Mexico about judicial reform and the perils of judicial democracy is laughable.
Moreover, Salazar’s threats constituted a brazen intervention into a sovereign nation’s internal politics—hardly a first for a U.S. ambassador, but unacceptable nonetheless. Instead, the United States might prioritize putting its own house in order and follow Mexico’s example to confront the unelected far-right ideologues who have hijacked U.S. democracy from the bench with total impunity.
Mexico has every right to experiment with its forms of democratic self-governance. Maybe the United States should give it a try.
Keep ReadingShow Less
For Our Rights and Our Future, the Senate Must Get To Work on Judicial Confirmations
Focusing on confirming judges will make a tremendous difference in our lives and for our fundamental rights and freedoms.
Sep 13, 2024
President Biden has already accomplished an incredible amount to help create a federal judiciary that works for everyone. From the confirmation of more than 200 qualified and diverse lifetime judges (and counting) to advancing a long-overdue conversation about modernizing and reforming our Supreme Court so that we can one day trust that it provides equal justice for all, we are making important progress. At a time when the extremist majority on our nation’s highest court has rolled back the progress we have made—taking away the fundamental right to abortion, removing a vital tool for eliminating unfair barriers to educational opportunity, weakening voting rights for communities of color, and more—the task of improving a damaged judiciary is daunting.
It’s no surprise that the public’s trust in the judiciary is declining, as reports persist about some Supreme Court justices’ deeply concerning unethical behavior. Our justices should be serving all of us, but some of them are showing that they are only concerned about the interests of the wealthy and powerful. As we live in this reality, we must also do the work to foster a federal judiciary that respects, recognizes, and advances our civil and human rights.
Our justices should be serving all of us, but some of them are showing that they are only concerned about the interests of the wealthy and powerful.
It is incumbent on every generation to protect the progress made and work toward a more inclusive and thriving democracy and society in which everyone is treated with respect and dignity. Unfortunately, in the past few years alone, a manufactured and coordinated campaign has taken us back—but we are not backing down. We are fighting for a better future where our rights, our lives, and our future are respected. For this to happen, our Supreme Court justices must be held to the highest ethical standards, and Congress must explore all options to improve how the Court functions and thus examine its structure, including limiting the amount of time justices can actively serve. In the next few months, there’s also important work that must be done that will make a real difference in our lives. Federal judges decide important cases from who can access health care to whose votes are counted. And for our democracy to endure, we need highly qualified, fair-minded individuals in courtrooms across our nation who will advance equal justice for all.
President Biden, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin have helped to make a significant impact, stewarding more than 200 confirmations of lifetime judges and justices to our federal courts. This includes ushering in the most diverse slate—both demographically and professionally—of federal judges in history. Nearly two-thirds of these confirmed judges are women, nearly two-thirds are people of color, and more than 40 percent have significant experience protecting people’s civil and human rights. Of course, President Biden appointed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman and first former public defender to serve on our nation’s highest court, and her service to date has been remarkable. A few weeks ago, President Biden also announced his support for long-needed changes to the Supreme Court, including a binding code of conduct for Supreme Court justices.
Transforming our federal judiciary so it not only looks like America but also recognizes and respects the rule of law—and how laws impact people's lives—has been a cornerstone of President Biden’s administration. Together we have changed the default of who is considered fair and qualified for the federal bench because we know that a judiciary staffed with brilliant people committed to equal justice—people whose experiences have been historically excluded—yields better decisions and is more reflective and representative of America. We celebrate this remarkable progress. But we cannot relent.
Time is of the essence. We need laser-like focus to fill every vacancy possible by the end of the year.
The jurists who President Biden has appointed will be serving for decades to come—far outlasting his impressive four years in office. To honor his legacy and to ensure justice is served in more corners of our country, progress must accelerate. Over the next few months, senators must urgently prioritize the confirmation of diverse judges who possess a deep commitment to our civil and human rights.
Now that the Senate has returned, we urge senators to seize every opportunity to make an immediate and lasting difference. The Democratic-led Senate, under the leadership of Majority Leader Schumer, has already confirmed several nominees this week and has now confirmed 209 lifetime nominees during the Biden administration. Dozens more are awaiting action in committee or on the Senate floor. This includes numerous nominees with critical civil and human rights experience, including experience defending religious freedom and protecting the rights of working people and those involved in the criminal-legal system. Time is of the essence. We need laser-like focus to fill every vacancy possible by the end of the year.
For some comparison, President Trump during his one term in office was able to confirm 234 nominees to lifetime judgeships with the avid assistance of then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. In the final months of his one term, the Republican-led Senate confirmed 30 judicial nominees, including a Supreme Court justice. We can exceed the previous administration both in numbers and quality—and we must. While we have a long way to go until we have equal justice, it’s imperative that Schumer accelerate this progress and continue to use every moment over the next few weeks and months to fill as many judicial seats as possible. With focus and determination, the Senate can leave President Biden the legacy of appointing a stunning number—more than the last administration—of superbly qualified judicial nominees.
Focusing on confirming judges will make a tremendous difference in our lives and for our fundamental rights and freedoms. We need to take all necessary steps to strengthen our judiciary so that our multiracial democracy can thrive and equal justice prevails.
President Biden’s legacy deserves no less. And our future depends on it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Shopping for Judges by Right-Wing Crusaders Undermines Public Trust
Random case assignment serves as a bulwark against the undue influence of political agendas on our courts.
Mar 23, 2024
If you are a right-wing activist looking to persuade a federal judge to impose your views on the country, what do you do? For starters, you go shopping.
Judge shopping, that is. Head to the courthouse in Amarillo, Texas. No matter if you aren’t from there. There is precisely one federal district judge in Amarillo. His name is Matthew Kacsmaryk. And odds are high that he will issue a ruling just as you seek, one that imposes a highly conservative, indeed theocratic, worldview. He might even issue an injunction that purports to cover the entire country.
That’s what happened a year ago when activists pulled up to Amarillo and won a ruling by Kacsmaryk effectively banning mifepristone, a medication used for more than half of all abortions in the United States. The activists knew, as the judge’s sister told reporters, that he had made it his mission to end all abortions in the United States. (He has called homosexuality “disordered” for good measure.) It showed the power of one judge with a gavel and a grudge to impose his views on tens of millions of citizens.
It will crush confidence in the rule of law if judges are seen as partisan or political actors.
This was too much even for the reactionary Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which stayed some of the more extreme parts of Kacsmaryk’s order while the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. Later this year, the court will hear this case. However it turns out, it was an unsettling reminder of the vulnerability of our legal system to judge shopping.
All states have at least one federal district court, but these are often broken into smaller divisions that usually automatically assign cases among one or two judges. Litigants can strategically file in a division with an ideologically friendly judge to boost their odds of a favorable ruling. That matters most when a case is heavy with political or ideological significance. Picking the right law is great; picking the right judge can be even better.
All this is magnified by the weird fact that the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether a single judge can issue a nationwide injunction stopping conduct or barring government from acting. Liberals and conservatives alike have used this for years.
Last fall, the Brennan Center urged the Judicial Conference, a panel of judges that sets policies for the federal judiciary, to address this problem. In a meeting last week, the conference took a welcome if tentative step in the right direction. It announced a policy to encourage random assignment of cases with a statewide or nationwide impact. That would lessen the odds that filing a case in a given division would give a plaintiff their judge of choice. The policy makes sense. But the guidance is nonbinding, and it’s unclear whether districts will follow it. Still, it is a promising sign that federal judicial leaders recognize judge shopping as a threat to public trust. Soon we will learn if their gentle encouragement leads to action. I’m not holding my breath.
The stakes could not be higher. Yesterday we got a glimpse of why this matters so much. Murthy v. Missouri is part of the drive to clear the path for disinformation in the 2024 election. A judge had barred the federal government from even talking to social media platforms to discourage disinformation on Covid-19 or voting. Republican state attorneys general brought the case in a division where they were all but guaranteed to get Trump-appointed Judge Terry Doughty. Last July, he ordered federal officials to stop communicating with social media companies about false content, removing a vital check on the rampant election falsehoods that continue to circulate online.
A Supreme Court ruling on the Murthy case will come in the next few months, but as my colleagues Lawrence Norden and Gowri Ramachandran have pointed out, the trial judge’s ruling has already wreaked significant damage. Government agencies simply stopped talking with Facebook, YouTube, and other platforms. Private groups and scholars pulled back. There is a wide-open terrain for the Big Lie in the 2024 election.
Judge shopping undermines public trust. Opposing it should be a nonpartisan cause. Instead, the new policy—mushy as it is—faced a sharp partisan backlash. Republican senators sent letters to about a dozen federal district court chief judges advising them to disregard the policy change. They accused the conference of involving itself with partisan battles, even though 15 of the conference’s 26 current members were appointed by President George W. Bush.
Public trust in the Supreme Court has plummeted to the lowest level ever recorded in polls. Lower courts may not be far behind. It will crush confidence in the rule of law if judges are seen as partisan or political actors. Random case assignment serves as a bulwark against the undue influence of political agendas on our courts. So one or maybe two cheers for the new policy. Next, the Judicial Conference should cement this policy in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The window for judge shopping should be slammed shut.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Steven Donziger, Lawyer Targeted by Chevron, Appeals to Biden for Pardon
"A pardon would bring a measure of justice to a prosecution that has been widely criticized as a violation of international law... and as a grave threat to free speech," said 14 attorneys backing the climate justice lawyer's request.
Mar 20, 2024
After exhausting his options in the judicial system, American attorney Steven Donziger on Wednesday launched a campaign seeking a pardon from U.S. President Joe Biden for his misdemeanor conviction—the result of a process that experts worldwide have condemned as retaliatory for his climate justice work and an abuse of the nation's judiciary.
"No matter where one stands on the political spectrum, we should all be able to agree that what happened to me in the United States should not happen to anybody in any country that adheres to the rule of law," Donziger said in a statement announcing a letter to Biden signed by 14 prominent lawyers and a leader at the advocacy group Amazon Watch.
"Corporations should not be allowed to take direct control of a public prosecution from the government and lock up their critics, as happened to me," asserted Donziger, who spent 993 days in federal prison and on house arrest. "It's an outrageous abuse of power that not only wrecked me and my family's life for three years but also embarrassed our country in the eyes of the world."
"As far as we can tell, this was the nation's first private corporate prosecution and is an obvious violation of the rule of law."
Donziger is a Harvard Law School graduate known globally for representing farmers and Indigenous people in a lawsuit targeting Chevron for polluting communities in Ecuador that resulted in a $9.5 billion judgment against the oil giant. After nearly two decades of battling the attorney in Ecuadorian courts, the company went after him directly in U.S. federal court.
The attorneys backing his pardon request detailed in their letter how Donziger endured a "patently biased prosecution by a group of three Chevron-linked lawyers" for refusing to comply with an order from a U.S. judge—an ex-corporate attorney with investments in the oil giant—to turn over his electronics and client communications to the company.
"As far as we can tell, this was the nation's first private corporate prosecution and is an obvious violation of the rule of law," they wrote to Biden. "As a result of the private prosecution, Mr. Donziger, a resident of New York City, spent close to three years in detention at home and in prison even though the maximum sentence under the law for his misdemeanor offense level was 180 days."
"A pardon would bring a measure of justice to a prosecution that has been widely criticized as a violation of international law by respected international and U.S.-based jurists, and as a grave threat to free speech by a multitude of political leaders and over 120 respected civil society organizations including Amnesty International, Global Witness, and Greenpeace," the lawyers argued.
Critics of the process that resulted in his conviction include the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; a team of international trial observers led by Stephen A. Rapp, U.S. ambassador for war crimes under the Obama administration; Judge Steven Menashi, appointed to U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit by former President Donald Trump; and right-wing U.S. Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who dissented from a decision not to take his case.
"I am inspired by Steven's courage, resilience, and determination," said Paul Paz y Miño of Amazon Watch, who signed the 12-page letter along with the group of attorneys. "That's why Chevron wants to destroy him. Steven's very existence creates enormous financial risk to Chevron and to the oil industry generally. Every fossil fuel industry lawyer in this country fears Steven."
"More broadly, Chevron's outrageous abuse of power and manipulation of the federal judiciary to target Steven should deeply concern every advocate in the country, particularly those who engage in protest," Paz y Miño warned. "What happened to Steven is a central component of the fossil fuel industry's playbook to silence public opposition."
Water Protector Legal Collective director Natali Segovia, one of the lawyers who signed on, similarly condemned legal tactics used by corporations to target environmental campaigners.
"Around the world, human rights defenders like Steven Donziger are targeted and even killed for their advocacy and work on Indigenous rights and environmental justice issues," Segovia said. "Steven's case, however, is emblematic of the weaponization of the law by a powerful corporation against a human rights defender—an attorney, to be exact—and sets a dangerous precedent."
"If it could happen to Steven, a Harvard-trained human rights lawyer, it could happen to anyone on climate frontlines."
"If it could happen to Steven, a Harvard-trained human rights lawyer, it could happen to anyone on climate frontlines," Segovia stressed. "This is what we are guarding against. This is why a pardon for Steven barely hits the tip of the iceberg to reverse course, but is a necessary step in ensuring fundamental rights of due process and human rights in the United States."
The other lawyers supporting Donziger—who hail from prestigious universities and groups such as the Center for Constitutional Rights—are Nadia Ahmad, Baher Azmy, Scott Wilson Badenoch, Terrence Collingsworth, Aaron Fellmeth, Richard Friedman, Martin Garbus, Jeffrey Haas, Ronald Kuby, Jeanne Mirer, Aaron Marr Page, Nadine Strossen, and Michael Tigar.
Along with thanking "from the bottom of my heart the many distinguished lawyers who have agreed to represent me in this campaign," Donziger called on the Biden administration to investigate Chevron for abusing the U.S. legal system.
Donziger also said that it remains "critical that people focus on what is of paramount importance, which is the plight of the thousands of people in Ecuador who face a serious risk of death if Chevron does not comply with the rule of law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Leaders Push Judiciary to Ignore Policy Designed to End 'Judge Shopping'
"Look who just came out and said it: We're against the fair and impartial administration of justice," said one civil rights attorney.
Mar 15, 2024
Republican lawmakers on Thursday signaled they want to stop judges from following a new judicial policy unveiled this week that's aimed at curbing what one journalist called "one of the most outrageous aspects of the American legal system."
In a letter to the chief justices of U.S. district courts across the country on a new rule regarding the practice of "judge shopping," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) joined Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) in advising the judges that "Judicial Conference policy is not legislation."
The policy in question, approved by the Judicial Conference on Tuesday, would prevent plaintiffs from filing lawsuits that seek to block state or federal actions in single-judge divisions—a practice that right-wing litigants have been criticized for using in order to secure favorable rulings. Instead, the court system would randomly assign lawsuits to any judge throughout the district where they were filed.
The practice of judge shopping, wrote Ian Millhiser at Vox on Tuesday, "turned Matthew Kacsmaryk, an obscure advocate on the Christian right appointed by former President Donald Trump to the Northern District of Texas, into one of the most powerful government officials in the entire country" in recent years, due to the judge's status as the only federal trial judge based in Amarillo, Texas.
Attorneys representing right-wing causes have filed numerous lawsuits in Kacsmaryk's court, including one in which a parent sued the government over Title X funding of family planning clinics and a case challenging federal approval of mifepristone, which is used in medication abortion.
Senate Democrats last year wrote to the Judicial Conference and called on the body to "address this problem and restore fairness to our federal judiciary."
In an attempt to ensure the judicial system continues supporting judge shopping, the Republican leaders told chief justices: "It is your job to manage the caseload of your court according to the dictates of local circumstances and convention. We therefore hope and expect that you will continue to do what is in the interest of justice for litigants in your jurisdiction without regard to partisan battles in Washington, D.C."
The letter amounted to an admission that the GOP is "against the fair and impartial administration of justice," said civil rights attorney Leslie Proll.
At The American Prospect, Ryan Cooper wrote Friday that judge shopping is "offensive" to "basic principles of the rule of law and democratic values."
"Government is supposed to be based on the consent of the governed, and the principal focus of the judiciary should be ensuring the law is applied in a consistent and coherent fashion rather than acting as an unelected legislature," wrote Cooper. "That holds double when it comes to any one of 677 district court judges, who have no business whatsoever dictating terms to the people as a whole. But with judge shopping, a random handful of extremists can file a lawsuit based on crackpot nonsense or actual lies, present their case to a carefully chosen friendly judge who will automatically rule in their favor, and seize control of some national policy."
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Bloomberg Law Thursday that the Judicial Conference had acted "to curb the ability of MAGA extremists to handpick their preferred Trump-appointed judge."
"America has seen what happens when MAGA Republicans use the courts to advance their unpopular agenda because they cannot prevail in the court of public opinion—just look to recent mifepristone cases in Texas. Preventing this abuse of the system will help restore the public's trust in our court system and strengthen our democracy."
Judicial advocacy group Demand Justice said the reform introduced by the Judicial Conference is "long overdue."
"We will need oversight and reform from Congress to restore legitimacy and balance to our courts," said the group.
Democratic senators including Sens. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and Ron Wyden of Oregon have proposed legislation to prevent judge shopping. The Republicans noted in their letter Thursday that Congress rejected a bill in 1999 that would have required cases to be randomly assigned.
Cooper called the Judicial Conference's announcement "a highly welcome reform that should reduce the amount of judicial overreach in this country," but also "an indicator of just how broken the other two branches of government have become, particularly Congress."
“Ultimately, we can't expect the judiciary to truly regulate itself," wrote Cooper. "As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, 'Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.' When feral judges arrogate the powers of Congress to themselves, the legislature is supposed to slap them down. Until it does, the problem of judicial tyranny will remain."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Rebuke to Far Right, Israeli Supreme Court Strikes Down Autocratic Judicial Reforms
The historic follows massive street protests against the measures last year and amid Israel's ongoing Gaza onslaught.
Jan 02, 2024
In the midst of Israel’s brutal total war on Palestinian civilians in Gaza and its apparent failure to attain its basic war goals, the country’s Supreme Court has issued a ruling sure to throw the country into an unprecedented constitutional crisis.
Members of the government criticized the court for issuing its ruling in the midst of the Israeli campaign against Gaza, while others feared that it would reignite deep divisions in Israeli society that had provoked regular, massive demonstrations in the first eight months of 2023.
The Israeli newspaper Arab 48 reports that the Supreme Court voted 8 to 7 to reaffirm its prerogative of judicial review based on the country’s Basic Laws enacted by parliament, giving the Court the authority to strike down the July 24, 2023, law passed by the extremist parliament. The latter had removed the Court’s ability to interfere in cabinet decisions and appointments on the basis of what is called “the reasonableness doctrine,” which is rooted in British common law.
Israel does not have a constitution but Parliament (the Knesset) has passed a series of Basic Laws, beginning in 1958, which have constitutional implications. This is especially true of of two important laws of the early 1990s, the 9th and 10th. The Center for Israel Education notes, “The Tenth Basic Law of Israel was passed by the Twelfth Knesset on March 17, 1992. It states that human rights are based on recognition of the value of man, the sanctity of life and the fact that he is free. Its aim is ‘to defend Human Dignity and Liberty, in order to establish the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.’ It defines human freedom in Israel as being the right to leave and enter the country, to privacy, intimacy, and refrainment from searches of private property, body, possessions, speech, writings, and notes. Violations of the dignity or freedom of man is permitted only in accordance with the law.'” The current extremists in power in Israel would like to roll back these liberties, and their attempt to gut the “reasonableness” doctrine was only the first step toward neutering the Supreme Court entirely.
About a year ago, as the extreme, fascist government of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was consolidating itself, the PM tried to appoint Aryeh Makhlouf Deri as Minister of Health and the Interior. Deri, the leader of the fundamentalist Shas Party, had had several run-ins in with the law and even gone to jail for corruption, and the court held he recently had made a deal to stay out of political office to avoid going to jail yet again, on which he and Netanyahu reneged. The Supreme Court intervened to strike down Deri’s appointment, invoking the reasonableness doctrine. The Supreme Court had also ruled against Israeli sovereignty in the Palestinian West Bank, castigating vigilante Israeli squatting there.
The law that the far-right Israeli Knesset passed on July 24 forbade the High Court of Justice from in any way appealing to the reasonability standard to check the power of the government, whether in making cabinet decisions or appointments.
Twelve of the 15 justices ruled that the Supreme Court has the prerogative to exercise judicial review based on the Basic Laws, including any parliamentary attempt to abrogate those laws, which form the basis of the future constitution of Israel. The Supreme Court plays this role, they said, to prevent “harm to the democratic values of the state.” The reaffirmation that the court could use the reasonableness doctrine to overrule cabinet decisions and appointments despite the new Knesset legislation, however, was only passed by a margin of one vote.
Monday’s Court decision noted that “judicial review (judicial oversight of the decisions of the legislative and executive branches) is the only effective brake on the great power concentrated in the hands of the government and its ministers.” It added that last July’s legislation curbing the court’s ability to abrogate cabinet decisions and appointments “exceeds the authority of the Knesset, and contradicts the principles of democracy, and undermines an essential part of the court’s role in defending the individual and the public interest.”
The majority decision observed, “As a result of the extreme and exceptional wording of the amendment, and given the existing constitutional situation, it causes unprecedented damage, by its scope, to the principle of the separation of powers.”
The legal issues are complicated inasmuch as the July legislation was itself considered a Basic Law, and this is the first time the Supreme Court has overruled such a Basic Law. It essentially pitted the previous Basic Laws against this one and found it incompatible with its predecessors.
Netanyahu’s Justice Minister, Yariv Levin, responded to the ruling by complaining that “The decision of the Supreme Court justices to publish the ruling during the war contradicts the ‘spirit of unity’ required these days for the success of our fighters at the front.”
He went on to reject the principle of judicial review, charging that the justices “have effectively monopolized for themselves all the prerogatives that are supposed to be divided in a balanced manner among the three Powers in democratic systems.”
Not only did Levin reject judicial review, a basic principle of democracy that has been increasingly embraced around the world since WW II, he went on to put forward a fascist principle that the masses should be able to subvert the rule of law, saying that a “situation in which it is impossible to enact a basic law or take any decision in the Knesset or in the government without the approval of the justices of the Supreme Court deprives millions of citizens of their voice and their basic right to be equal partners in the decision-making process.”
Actually, in a parliamentary system where the government only has 64 of 120 seats, for it to act in an unrestrained manner would disenfranchise nearly half the citizens, in what is known as a “tyranny of the majority,” of which James Madison was terrified. The Likud, rooted in the Central European far right thinking of the twentieth century interwar period, actively seeks a tyranny of the majority and so of course is annoyed by checks and balances such as judicial review.
The web page of the US Supreme Court contains this language: “Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people.”
Thus, it is Levin who is being anti-democratic and favoring a violation of the rule of law.
Levin pledged to continue the battle “on various fronts” and said that the ruling “will not weaken us.”
The far right Likud Party and the fundamentalist Shas Party both basically repeated Levin’s talking points.
The convicted racist, and obviously fascist, minister of national security, Itamar Ben-Gvir of the Jewish Power bloc, erupted, saying “The Supreme Court decided to weaken the morale of the fighters in Gaza and harm them first and foremost.” He continued, “The Supreme Court’s ruling is illegal, and includes an unprecedented cancellation of a basic law, in the absence of a source of constitutional powers, while the judges have a conflict of interest. This is a dangerous and undemocratic event – and at this time, the Supreme Court’s ruling is harmful to the war effort.”
Branding the court’s ruling “illegal” is a declaration of war by the executive and the parliamentary majority against the national judiciary, and presages dire internal conflict as soon as the artificial unity fostered by the Gaza campaign subsides.
Opposition leader Yair Lapid of the Yesh Atid Party wrapped himself in the patriotism of the Gaza campaign from the other direction in expressing approval of the Court decision. He said, “Today the Supreme Court faithfully stood up for its role in protecting the citizens of Israel, and we give it our full support.”
He continued, “If the Israeli government once again begins its struggle with the Supreme Court, then it will not have learned anything. They have not learned anything from October 7th. They have learned nothing from 87 days of war to defend the homeland.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Cesspool of Corruption': Dems Reintroduce Bill to Impose Supreme Court Term Limits
"Our Founding Fathers intended for lifetime appointments to ensure impartiality," said Rep. Ro Khanna. "The decision today demonstrates how justices have become partisan and out of step with the American public."
Jun 30, 2023
Condemning the right-wing majority on the U.S. Supreme Court as corrupt and "heavily politicized," U.S. Reps. Ro Khanna and Don Beyer on Friday reintroduced legislation to impose term limits for the nine justices in order to "restore judicial independence."
Hours after the court ruled that businesses can refuse services to LGBTQ+ people and struck down President Joe Biden's student loan debt relief program, Khanna (D-Calif.) said that the framers of the Constitution established lifetime appointments for justices on the nation's highest court in order "to ensure impartiality," but recent rulings by the six right-wing members of the panel's supermajority have not held up that standard.
"The Supreme Court's decision to block student debt relief will put many hardworking Americans at risk of default and will be a disaster for our economy," said Rep. Ro Khanna. "Our Founding Fathers intended for lifetime appointments to ensure impartiality. The decision today demonstrates how justices have become partisan and out of step with the American public. I'm proud to reintroduce the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act to implement term limits to rebalance the court and stop extreme partisanship."
The legislation would create an 18-year term limit for justices appointed after the law was enacted. Justices would be permitted to serve on lower courts after their term was up.
Beyer (D-Va.) said the time has come to impose term limits following numerous partisan decisions by the Supreme Court, including its overturning of Roe v. Wade last year, and revelations about undisclosed financial ties that right-wing Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch have had to Republican megadonors and operatives who have had business before the court.
"For many Americans, the Supreme Court is a distant, secretive, unelected body that can make drastic changes in their lives without any accountability," said Beyer. "Recent partisan decisions by the Supreme Court that destroyed historic protections for reproductive rights, voting rights, and more have undermined public trust in the Court—even as inappropriate financial relationships between justices and conservative donors raised new questions about its integrity."
Currently, said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), "six extremist, unelected activists" are doing "the bidding of billionaire Republican donors from the bench."
"This illegitimate Supreme Court has become a cesspool of corruption and is in urgent need of reform," she said. "It's time to end lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court."
A poll by Marist College in April found that 68% of Americans back term limits for Supreme Court justices while just 37% of respondents said they had confidence in the high court.
The judicial watchdog group Fix the Court endorsed Khanna and Beyer's proposal, noting that from the nation's founding until 1970, Supreme Court justices served 15 years on average.
"That number has nearly doubled in the last few decades, as the power the court has abrogated to itself has also increased exponentially," said the group.
The current system has allowed Supreme Court justices to "possess unchecked power for life," said Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court. "Luckily, there's a popular, apolitical way to fix this: by requiring future justices to take 'senior status' after 18 years, at which point they'd fill in at SCOTUS when needed, rotate down to a lower court, or retire."
"This idea forms the basis of Rep. Khanna's bill," he said, "and I'm pleased to support his work to establish fundamental guardrails for the most powerful, least accountable part of our government."
Keep ReadingShow Less
While Silent on Apartheid, Israelis Protest Netanyahu Firing Minister Who Urged Halt to Judicial Coup
"This is all so inspiring—and at the same time, so dreadful to know that all these forces have been silent for so long on apartheid. Silent, or actively participating and profiting from it," said one Israeli journalist.
Mar 26, 2023
Decades into the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine, massive crowds flooded Israel's streets on Sunday for another round of demonstrations to "save a democracy that never existed," as one journalist recently put it.
Sunday's protests were sparked by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu firing Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who a day earlier advocated for a one-month pause to an ongoing judicial overhaul "for the sake of Israel's security," given military reservists' concerns. Saturday also saw hundreds of thousands of Israelis join nationwide rallies, the 12th straight week of mass action against the looming changes.
"The state of Israel's security has always been and will forever be my life's mission," Gallant, a member of Netanyahu's Likud party and former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) commander, declared in response to his dismissal.
A White House National Security Council spokesperson said, "We are deeply concerned by the ongoing developments in Israel, including the potential impact on military readiness raised by Minister Gallant, which further underscores the urgent need for compromise."
The Movement for Quality Government in Israel, which is also fighting against the judicial overhaul, argued Gallant's ouster "proves once again" that Netanyahu "is not institutionally, ethically, or morally qualified" to serve as prime minister and vowed to consider legal action to stop the "scandalous and disgraceful" dismissal.
Israeli analyst Meron Rapoport
told Middle East Eye that Gallant's firing was "a desperate, extreme move by Netanyahu," whose decision was blasted by political opponents and other key Israeli figures while praised by far-right leaders.
"Netanyahu's descent into authoritarian madness," as one U.S. reporter described it, leaves Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich—the Religious Zionism leader who recently said that "there's no such thing as Palestinians" and Israel should "wipe out" the Palestinian village of Hawara—as the only minister in Israel's Ministry of Defense.
Israeli Defense Ministry Director General Eyal Zamir on Sunday decided to cut short his trip to the United States. In Israel, demonstrators filled Tel Aviv's main highway. Police used water cannons on protesters who broke through barricades at Netanyahu's residence in Jerusalem. Universities announced an indefinite strike. On Monday, dozens of doctors intend to call in "sick" while 26 heads of local authorities plan to launch a hunger strike at the prime minister's office.
In what one reporter said "could be a game-changer," the head of Histadrut, the Israeli trade union federation that has so far resisted pressure to join protests against the judicial coup, scheduled a press conference for late Monday morning.
After 18 "fulfilling and rewarding" months as the Israeli consul general in New York, Asaf Zamir resigned Sunday, saying that "following today's developments, it is now time for me to join the fight for Israel's future to ensure it remains a beacon of democracy and freedom in the world."
Meanwhile, Israeli journalist Haggai Matar, executive director of +972 Magazine and Local Call, said in a series of tweets that Gallant, who should be tried at the International Criminal Court "for his war crimes against Palestinians in Gaza," was fired "for the wrong reasons."
"Netanyahu fired him for trying to slow down Israel's transition into a fully authoritarian state toward Jews," Matar wrote. "Of course, it has been a dictatorship toward Palestinians for decades, and now that logic is expanding into Israel and Jews, while paving the way for even worse attacks on Palestinians."
Of the latest protests, he added: "This is all so inspiring—and at the same time, so dreadful to know that all these forces have been silent for so long on apartheid. Silent, or actively participating and profiting from it. And yet now they are on an all-out battle under the slogan of democracy."
American-Israeli reporter Mairav Zonszein wrote for The Daily Beast on Wednesday that "Israelis who have bent the rule of law to suit their ideology for decades are now themselves becoming the target of a far-right that is using its newly won power to bend it even further."
"Each party in the Israeli government has specific and explicit goals that the various laws in this judicial overhaul package would serve," Zonszein explained. Ultra-Orthodox parties want to ensure "their constituency does not have to serve in the military" and the Shas Party aims to enable leader Aryeh Deri "to serve as a minister despite several recent convictions of tax fraud."
"For the religious, nationalist, racist, far-right parties—Jewish Power and Religious Zionism, both headed by settlers who are now senior ministers in government—it's about extending Israeli sovereignty over all occupied territory," she continued. The Likud party wants to keep expanding "Israel's settlement enterprise, consolidate power over media, culture, and public institutions—and for Netanyahu, it is about assuming enough control over the courts, through appointing judges, to evade conviction."
Netanyahu, who
did not campaign on judicial reforms, returned to power last year—and established the most far-right government in Israel's history—despite facing various charges of corruption, which he denies.
"The act of creating new laws in order to serve its interests on the ground is precisely what Israel has been doing for 56 years as an occupying power," Zonszein stressed, adding:
While protesters—many of them among the most privileged in Israeli society—walk in the streets demanding the "rule of law" and "democracy," Israeli forces are demolishing Palestinian homes; standing alongside settlers who are terrorizing Palestinians; denying freedom of movement and assembly; holding people in prolonged detention without trial; killing unarmed protesters; carrying out torture; and deporting Palestinian activists. And within Israel, Palestinian citizens face structural discrimination and inequality under an explicit policy that prioritizes Jewish rights.
[...]
There is also a small but dedicated anti-occupation bloc that carries signs at the protests with messages like: "There is no democracy with occupation" and "Democracy for all from the river to the sea." At one of the recent protests, a gray-haired woman held up a sign that may sum it up best: "We were silent about occupation, we got a dictatorship."
U.S.-Palestinian journalist and Palestine Chronicle editor Ramzy Baroud contended in an opinion piece for Common Dreams earlier this month that "a proper engagement with the ongoing protests is to further expose how Tel Aviv utilizes the judicial system to maintain the illusion that Israel is a country of law and order, and that all the actions and violence in Palestine, however bloody and destructive, are fully justifiable according to the country's legal framework."
"Yes, Israel should be sanctioned, not because of Netanyahu's attempt at co-opting the judiciary, but because the system of apartheid and regime of military occupation constitute complete disregard and utter violation of international law," Baroud concluded. "Whether Israelis like it or not, international law is the only law that matters to an occupied and oppressed nation."
Yonah Lieberman, co-founder of the U.S. group IfNotNow, noted that earlier in the weekend, Israeli soldiers forced Palestinian worshippers out of the Al-Aqsa Mosque during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
Responding to footage from Israeli protests Sunday night, Lieberman said: "Furious young people fighting an authoritarian for their rights. Reminds you of popular uprisings that have happened over and over again across the world. But if these were young Palestinians they would have been shot—the Jewish privilege inherent in Israel's apartheid system."
"A popular uprising to overthrow Netanyahu and his extremist government will not lead to democracy and equality for all in Israel," he added. "Only overthrowing the entire apartheid system will lead to democracy and equality for all."
This post has been updated with comment from Yonah Lieberman.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Perhaps Protests Will Help People Recognize That Israel Is Not a Country of Law and Order
On mass demonstrations, false hope, and why Israel's Supreme Court is no friend of the Palestinian people.
Mar 16, 2023
As hundreds of thousands, throughout Israel, joined anti-government protests, questions began to arise regarding how this movement would affect, or possibly merge, into the wider struggle against the Israeli military occupation and apartheid in Palestine.
Pro-Palestine media outlets shared, with obvious excitement, news about statements made by Hollywood celebrities, the likes of Mark Ruffalo, about the need to “sanction the new hard right-wing government of (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu”.
Netanyahu, who sits at the heart of the current controversy and mass protests, struggled to find a single pilot for the flight carrying him to Rome on March 9 for a three-day visit with the Italian government. The reception for the Israeli leader in Italy was equally cold. Italian translator, Olga Dalia Padoa, reportedly refused to interpret Netanyahu’s speech, scheduled for March 9 at a Rome synagogue.
One can appreciate the need to strategically use the upheaval against Netanyahu’s far-right government to expose Israel’s fraudulent claim to true democracy, supposedly ‘the only democracy in the Middle East’. However, one has to be equally careful not to validate Israel’s inherently racist institutions that have been in existence for decades before Netanyahu arrived in power.
The Israeli Prime Minister has been embroiled in corruption cases for years. Though he remained popular, Netanyahu lost his position at the helm of Israeli politics in June 2021, following three bitterly-contested elections. Yet, he returned on December 29, 2022, this time with even more corrupt - even by Israel’s own definition - characters such as Aryeh Deri, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, the latter two currently serving as the ministers of finance and national security, respectively.
Each one of these characters had a different reason for joining the coalition. Smotrich and Ben Gvir’s agenda ranged from the annexation of illegal West Bank settlements to the deportation of Arab politicians considered ‘disloyal’ to the state.
Netanyahu, though a rightwing ideologue, is more concerned with personal ambitions: maintaining power as long as possible, while shielding himself and his family from legal problems. He simply wants to stay out of prison. To do so, he also needs to satisfy the dangerous demands of his allies, who have been given free rein to unleash army and settler violence against Palestinians in the Occupied West Bank, as has been the case in Huwwara, Nablus, Jenin and elsewhere.
But Netanyahu’s government, the most stable in years, has bigger goals than just “wiping out” Palestinian towns off the map. They want to alter the very judicial system that would allow them to transform Israeli society itself. The reform would grant the government control over judicial appointments by limiting the Israeli Supreme Court’s power to exercise judicial review.
The protests in Israel have very little to do with the Israeli occupation and apartheid, and are hardly concerned with Palestinian rights. They are led by many former Israeli leaders, the likes of former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, former minister Tzipi Livni and former prime minister and leader of the opposition, Yair Lapid. During the Naftali Bennett-Yair Lapid stint in power, between June 2021 and December 2022, hundreds of Palestinians were killed in the West Bank. 2022 was described by UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Tor Wennesland, as the “deadliest” in the West Bank since 2005. During that time, illegal Jewish settlements expanded rapidly, while Gaza was routinely bombed.
Yet, the Bennett-Lapid government faced little backlash from Israeli society for its bloody and illegal actions in Palestine. The Israeli Supreme Court, which has approved most of the government actions in Occupied Palestine, also faced little or no protests for certifying apartheid and validating the supposed legality of the Jewish colonies, all illegal under international law. The stamp of approval by the Supreme Court was also granted when Israel passed the Nation-State Law, identifying itself exclusively as a Jewish state, thus casting off the entirety of the Arab Muslim and Christian population which shares the same mass of land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Rarely did the Israeli judicial system take the side of Palestinians, and when little ‘victories’ were recorded now and then, they hardly altered the overall reality. Though one can understand the desperation of those trying to fight against Israeli injustices using the country’s own ‘justice system’, such language has contributed to the confusion regarding what Israel’s ongoing protests mean for Palestinians.
In fact, this is not the first time that Israelis have gone out on the streets in large numbers. In August 2011, Israel experienced what some referred to as Israel’s own ‘Arab Spring’. But that, too, was a class struggle within clearly defined ideological boundaries and political interests that rarely overlapped with a parallel struggle for equality, justice and human rights.
Dual socio-economic struggles exist in many societies around the world, and conflating between them is not unprecedented. In the case of Israel, however, such confusion can be dangerous because the outcome of Israel’s protests, be it a success or failure, could spur unfounded optimism or demoralize those fighting for Palestinian freedom.
Though stark violations of international law, the arbitrary arrests, extrajudicial executions and the everyday violence meted out against Palestinians, mostly take place within Israel’s legal framework. All of these acts are fully sanctioned by Israeli courts, including the country’s Supreme Court. This means that, even if Netanyahu fails to hegemonize the judicial system, Palestinian civilians will continue to be tried in military courts, which will carry out the routine of approving home demolition, illegal land seizure and the construction of settlements.
A proper engagement with the ongoing protests is to further expose how Tel Aviv utilizes the judicial system to maintain the illusion that Israel is a country of law and order, and that all the actions and violence in Palestine, however bloody and destructive, are fully justifiable according to the country’s legal framework.
Yes, Israel should be sanctioned, not because of Netanyahu’s attempt at co-opting the judiciary, but because the system of apartheid and regime of military occupation constitute complete disregard and utter violation of international law. Whether Israelis like it or not, international law is the only law that matters to an occupied and oppressed nation.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Tens of Thousands in Israel Rally Against 'Dictator's Bill' as Lawmakers Vote on Judicial Overhaul
If right-wing reforms giving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and members of parliament more power over the judiciary are passed, "the protests will intensify," said organizers.
Feb 20, 2023
Tens of thousands of people opposed to the far-right Israeli government's proposed judicial overhaul once again hit the streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv on Monday, where they implored lawmakers to vote against the measures during the afternoon's first reading.
"On the morning of the vote, small groups of protesters sat down outside the front doors of some coalition lawmakers' homes in a bid to block them from leaving for parliament. They were removed by the police," The New York Times reported. After blocking highways to Jerusalem, protesters gathered outside parliament, where doctors "set up a mock triage station for 'casualties of the judicial reform.'"
Despite weeks of massive demonstrations, members of the Israeli Knesset are expected to pass the legislation, which is supported by right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his close ally, Justice Minister Yariv Levin.
If that happens, the Supreme Court's ability to overrule parliament would be weakened, as a simple 61-vote majority could override the court's decisions; the Supreme Court's ability to review and strike down attempts to change Israel's 13 quasi-constitutional "Basic Laws" would be abolished; and the ruling coalition would gain control of the Judicial Appointments Commission, a panel tasked with picking new judges.
The legislation must be approved three times to become law, with Monday afternoon's vote marking the first step in the process. Israeli President Isaac Herzog, a largely ceremonial figure, and opposition leader Yair Lapid have pleaded for Netanyahu's government to delay the legislation, to no avail.
On the eve of the initial vote, Levin said, "We won't stop the legislation now, but there is more than enough time until the second and third readings to hold an earnest and real dialogue and to reach understandings."
But as the Times noted, "critics have dismissed the government's position as disingenuous, arguing that once the bills have passed a first vote, only cosmetic changes will be possible."
Organizers, for their part, said Monday that "with the passage of the dictator's bill, the protests will intensify," according to i24 News.
Opponents "say the proposed overhaul would place unchecked power in the hands of the government, remove protections afforded to individuals and minorities, and deepen divisions in an already fractured society," the Times reported. They also worry that "Netanyahu, who is standing trial on corruption charges, could use the changes to extricate himself from his legal troubles."
In addition, Al Jazeera reported, opponents fear that "Netanyahu's nationalist allies want to weaken the Supreme Court to establish more settlements on land the Palestinians seek for a state. But settlements, which are considered illegal under international laws, have continued under successive Israeli governments. Nearly 600,000-750,000 Israelis now live in illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem."
Last week, Netanyahu's administration granted retroactive "legalization" to nine such settlements, and the prime minister has also intensified deadly raids, killing at least 50 Palestinians in occupied territories so far this year.
A right-wing neutering of the Supreme Court could exacerbate Israel's regime of violent dispossession and ethnic cleansing.
But the weekslong demonstrations against the proposed judicial overhaul "include very few Palestinians," Jewish Currents editor Peter Beinart observed Sunday in a Times op-ed titled "You Can't Save Democracy in a Jewish State."
"In fact, Palestinian politicians have criticized them for having, in the words of former Knesset member Sami Abu Shehadeh, 'nothing to do with the main problem in the region—justice and equality for all the people living here,'" Beinart wrote.
"The reason is that the movement against Mr. Netanyahu is not like the pro-democracy opposition movements in Turkey, India, or Brazil—or the movement against Trumpism in the United States," he added. "It's not a movement for equal rights. It's a movement to preserve the political system that existed before Mr. Netanyahu's right-wing coalition took power, which was not, for Palestinians, a genuine liberal democracy in the first place. It's a movement to save liberal democracy for Jews."
For Palestinians, Israel is not a democracy but rather an apartheid state, an assessment shared by numerous human rights groups around the world. The Israeli government has enacted discriminatory laws against Palestinians and colonized their land for decades, including under Lapid.
According to Beinart: "The principle that Mr. Netanyahu's liberal Zionist critics say he threatens—a Jewish and democratic state—is in reality a contradiction. Democracy means government by the people. Jewish statehood means government by Jews. In a country where Jews comprise only half of the people between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, the second imperative devours the first."
"Ultimately, a movement premised on ethnocracy cannot successfully defend the rule of law," he added. "Only a movement for equality can."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy