Posted on 12/11/2003 10:18:52 AM PST by anotherview
Dec. 11, 2003
The Turbo touch
The panel entrusted with the task of choosing a new attorney-general earlier in the week disqualified Justice Minister Yosef Lapid's candidate, Yoram Turbowicz, seemingly on a technicality. In fact, the commission's motives went deeper.
Much was made of the fact that the committee nixed Turbowicz because by its count he hadn't spent the minimum time required – 10 years – in legal practice. By Turbowicz's own reckoning it was a full dozen years. But to quibble over these details is to miss the point.
The committee never got to seriously deliberate Turbowicz's credentials, nor actually bring his candidacy to a vote. In fact, most committee members never expressed their opinion. The minute two members opposed him, Turbowicz was out. If more than one panelist disapproves of a nominee, that objection, even if it fails to achieve a majority, is tantamount to a veto.
According to reports emanating from the committee, Turbowicz's candidacy was frowned upon from the outset, not so much due to the above-mentioned technicality, as to the fact that he spent too many years in business.
Some on the committee implied that they look askance on the notion of a businessman serving as attorney-general. The cards were stacked against Turbowicz even prior to the panel's deliberations due to his curriculum vitae, despite the fact that he possesses a doctorate from Harvard and experience as legal adviser to the Industry and Trade Ministry. His tenure as president of Discount Investments apparently impeded him.
Herein lies the problem with the committee, headed by Justice Gavriel Bach and comprising some of the most outstanding members of the country's legal profession. As in the choice of Supreme Court justices, we're faced with a situation whereby a minority of panel members may veto candidates not to their liking. The judicial guild can thus essentially duplicate itself by promoting candidates from a preferred background, who adhere to the same ideologies and outlook. As a result, lawyers with a background of private practice are not represented on the court and have a scant chance of ever achieving such representation, as long as the present system persists in allowing serving justices to bar those outside their "private club."
This is the danger now looming regarding the attorney-general's selection as well. The idea of empowering a specially-constituted panel to oversee this process was born of good intentions following the uproar which accompanied the Bar On-Hebron affair. The basic premise was to take the choice out of politicians' hands to ensure it is not tainted with ulterior motives.
But the flip side of honorable motivations means that those who come from outside the state's own legal branch – who did not make a career climbed through the system – stand little chance of making the muster.
Lapid may have badly erred when he boasted of his intention to break the tradition of the prosecution's "old boys" moving up to occupy the attorney-general's position. Too much chatter and bravado from Lapid only hurt Turbowicz's cause and provided the panel with extra incentive to dispel the impression created by Lapid that his favored candidate was a shoo-in.
Lapid gave the panel every reason to strive to prove its independence and to show it's no rubber stamp. Given this predisposition, coupled with the anti-business bias, Turbowicz's cause was a lost one.
We think he was rejected for the wrong reasons. We agree with Lapid that it is high time a new sort of attorney-general, not from the familiar old exclusive background, be chosen. We think the country could only greatly benefit from a new approach and a different direction.
The prosecution could certainly use a new broom of another brand.
We don't know if Turbowicz would have been successful. For that matter there is never any a priori guarantee for any candidate, no matter what his background. But we do feel that a background like Turbowicz's can only bring a fresh new spirit to a staid, spiritless system, with too many vested interests and too little tolerance for criticism, near imperiousness, unconscionable leaks, and often-alarming tendentiousness. Other parts of government, such as the Defense and Finance ministries, have benefited from the touch that outsiders can bring to the top echelons. We hope Lapid's renewed search for a candidate from the private sector succeeds this time.
The judicial guild can thus essentially duplicate itself by promoting candidates from a preferred background, who adhere to the same ideologies and outlook.
This is the root of the problem.
To tell the difference between a yellow jacket and a honeybee, it helps to watch their behavior. Honeybees gather pollen and flower nectar, while yellow jackets are mostly meat eaters, but will take plant and fruit juices also. Yellow jackets are particularly fond of rotting fruit. Yellow jackets are more likely than bees to sting without provocation, their sting is more painful, and normally no stinger remains in the skin and a single yellow jacket may sting more than once. Honeybees are much less likely to sting and their sting is not so painful. A honeybee leaves behind its stinger and a single bee can sting only once.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.