Turkey just had a referandum on a new constitution change packet. The packet has various changes but the most comprehensive ones are on Constitutional Court and the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors(HSYK) and Constitutional Court members. In short the changes bring more members to be selected by the government rather than having them selected independently. Some people call it more democratic but I don't see any place of democracy in judicial affairs as you wouldn't let the family of your killer to choose jury members because it's more democratic.
What I wanted to know was people's opinion on politic effect on Judicial affairs and how is it your country(who chooses the members and such)?
So how is it in your country? Because most people in Turkey who defended the changes were saying that it's the same system in EU states. The changes are also welcomed by the EU representatives in Turkey. I simply can't understand how opening judiciary system to politics is a democratic thing.
So how is it in your country? Because most people in Turkey who defended the changes were saying that it's the same system in EU states. The changes are also welcomed by the EU representatives in Turkey. I simply can't understand how opening judiciary system to politics is a democratic thing.
The president chooses a candidate for the Supreme Court, or District Court, and then that candidate has to be approved by the Congress.
In the State level, the Judge has to be approved by a commission.
But you have to be very political and have a high political profile also to be elected as a judge in the US.
Before the referendum; in short more than 50% of the members were chosen from organizations that were not tied to the parliament or a certian party and the rest was from the parliament or organizations that were tied to the parliament.
Now; it's the other way around.
Originally Posted by Pig Is Bacon
The president chooses a candidate for the Supreme Court, or District Court, and then that candidate has to be approved by the Congress.
In the State level, the Judge has to be approved by a commission.
But you have to be very political and have a high political profile also to be elected as a judge in the US.
In my personal opinion, I really like it the way it is now. People are quite stupid and bias (yes I know that presidents are bias, but at least a president is much smarter then the average citizen), and there choices for Judges are also going to be stupid and bias. So I rather leave it upto the government to choose it's Judges, as the government is much more smarter, un-bias, and fairer then people who select Judges.
In my personal opinion, I really like it the way it is now. People are quite stupid and bias (yes I know that presidents are bias, but at least a president is much smarter then the average citizen), and there choices for Judges are also going to be stupid and bias. So I rather leave it upto the government to choose it's Judges, as the government is much more smarter, un-bias, and fairer then people who select Judges.
But doesn't it bounce back and forth between Republicans and Democrats? One president may choose a person who is for pro-choice and stem cells while another one can choose the exact opposite. Then you politicize the judicial system.
So how is it in your country? Because most people in Turkey who defended the changes were saying that it's the same system in EU states. The changes are also welcomed by the EU representatives in Turkey. I simply can't understand how opening judiciary system to politics is a democratic thing.
it's the same system used in most countries, in the EU and the USA (well, they are appointed by the executive in the USA)
but I don't think it's a good system.
Just because "western" countries use it doesn't mean it's a good way of doing things
“The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking by cowards.”
Somebody needs to choose the judges. The process of the appointments is less important than the process for removal though. The judges are much more likely to be politicized and influenced if elected to short terms of office or if the they can be easily removed by legislative or executive acts. Pariamentary porcesses make the selection by the legislative or the executive a bit moot since the executive is often a subset of the majority in the legislative.
Grandson of Silver Guard, son of Maverick, and father to Mr MM|Rebel6666|Beer Money |bastard stepfather to Ferrets54 The Scriptorium is looking for great articles. Don't be bashful, we can help with the formatting and punctuation. I am only a pm away to you becoming a published author within the best archive of articles around. Post a challenge and start a debate Garb's Fight Club - the Challenge thread
.
Originally Posted by Simon Cashmere
Weighing into threads with the steel capped boots on just because you disagree with my viewpoints, is just embarrassing.
Originally Posted by Hagar_the_Horrible
As you journey through life take a minute every now and then to give a thought for the other fellow. He could be plotting something.
I agree entirely with what VP is saying. It's the process for removal that grants the independence of the judiciary much more than the method of appointment. In Australia it is notoriously difficult to remove a judge or magistrate. I vaguely remember one case a few years ago now which was put through only because he was ancient, refused to reture and repeatedly fell asleep during hearings. The funny thing about the judiciary (at least in my country) is that whoever appoints the judge or magistrate, as soon as they have their tenure they become much more impartial because although put there by specific people, those people cannot remove them, and have no effective power over them.
Do you have a source or commentary that says otherwise? This security of tenure is similar to Australia's Constitution except the ability to remove doesn't require the consent of the Houses of Parliament. I'm not sure what the requirements to prove "definitely established" are in Turkey.
Judges can be moved though apparently, so this could influence their decisions if they get moved to somewhere where their career could stall. Don't know if that's different to other countries or not, I haven't really considered it.
Last edited by Genius of the Restoration; September 13, 2010 at 12:02 AM.
Do you have a source or commentary that says otherwise? This security of tenure is similar to Australia's Constitution except the ability to remove doesn't require the consent of the Houses of Parliament. I'm not sure what the requirements to prove "definitely established" are in Turkey.
Judges can be moved though apparently, so this could influence their decisions if they get moved to somewhere where their career could stall. Don't know if that's different to other countries or not, I haven't really considered it.
Well as I can see the articles doesn't cover the judges being sent to different provinces like Eastern Turkey.
Politics and Judiciary
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Jingle_Bombs
