zlacker

> The Israeli judiciary is unique in nominating itself

this is at most lie and at least misconception. Supreme Court Judges are appointed by the President of Israel, from names submitted by the Judicial Selection Committee, which is composed of nine members: three Supreme Court Judges (including the President of the Supreme Court), two cabinet ministers (one of them being the Minister of Justice), two Knesset members, and two representatives of the Israel Bar Association. Appointing Supreme Court Judges requires a majority of 7 of the 9 committee members, or two less than the number present at the meeting.

>>tguvot+(OP)
In practice, the 3 Supreme Court Judges, the two representatives of the Israel Bar Association, and the 1 Knesset member "traditionally" representing one of the two major political camps [the one aligned with most Supreme Court Judges] always vote together, so most of the judiciary is appointed according to the wishes of the Supreme Court Judges. The veto on appointing Supreme Court Judges adds a modicum of balance, but given that the country can be set on fire at will by the Supreme Court like we've seen in 2023, I don't believe that this veto is that effective at changing appointments (if an appointee is declared illegitimate by the Supreme Court, the country will be paralyzed by protests; and more prosaically, you promote to the highest court from lower courts and everyone appointed to these was appointed by a simple majority without the 7-out-of-9 veto.)

The idea that 5 out 9 people nominating judges aren't elected, directly or indirectly, is AFAIK a fairly unique Israeli invention. This is taught in schools as a good thing because there's "a majority of professionals rather than politicians." I presume that this idea is so effective and consistent with the principles of democracy that it should also work for nominating governments and lawmakers.

>>yosefk+c1
>The idea that 5 out 9 people nominating judges aren't elected, directly or indirectly, is AFAIK a fairly unique Israeli invention.

Judges in England and Wales (including supreme court judges) are selected entirely by unelected officials; The government is explicitly prohibited from interfering with their decision. Given the influential nature of English law, I would be very surprised if this was unique.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Appointments_Commissi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_o...

>>jdietr+il
Another example:

In the Netherlands the Dutch Supreme Court provides parliament with a shortlist of 6 people. The Dutch parliament then makes a short list of 3 people based on that list. Traditionally the first three people on the 6 person list by the Dutch Supreme Court.

This 3 person list is then offered to the Dutch government who then appointments one of them, traditionally the first one on the list, as a Supreme Court judge.

In the entire history only once did the Dutch parliament deviate from the Supreme Court’s 6 person shortlist and only once did the Dutch government deviate from the parliament’s 3 person shortlist.

So in practice it’s the Supreme Court who chooses who should join them, none of the judges are elected officials.

Lower court judges aren’t elected either, like say, in the US.

Neither are prosecutors for that matter.

In general these are all merit based appointments, not unlike your average job application, just with more ceremony.