Reinstatement of Pakistan's chief justice ends a crisis, but it might lead to another

[Bane Blade]

We need the judiciary to be independant and a part of the Quadruka, of governance.

Do you suggest a system like America with four executive branches with influence like the army on the government?

 

[qsaark]

Do you suggest a system like America with four executive branches with influence like the army on the government?

Even in the US, the Judiciary is not fully free in a sense. First of all, the Judges of the Supreme Court (in fact all the federal Judges) have no term limit. They serve un till they are unable to work due to ailing health or if they are involved in some kind of crime or if they pass away.

These Judges are nominated by the President who in turn gets the feed back from the Attorney General on behalf of the Justice Department. These Judges generally are the members of the courts of appeal. Of course once a Judge is nominated by the President, he has to get confirmed by the Senate, at least 60 out of 100 (3/5th) senator votes are required for the confirmation.

Now as you can see, first of all, the Justice Department functions under the directive of the Attorney General who is nominated by the President. So when he forwards the names of the short listed Judges, he makes sure that these Judges agree (or tend to agree) with the basic philosophy (liberal or conservative) of the President and the ruling party. And this is where the things get politicized. At any rate, the short listed Judges are generally very well qualified irrespective of their political inclinations.

Examples also exist where the Judges did not quite agree with the President's philosophy who actually had appointed them in the first place.

President Eisenhower wanted a conservative Justice and commented that "he represents the kind of political, economic, and social thinking that I believe we need on the Supreme Court...." appointed Justice Earl Warren in 1953. Even though Justice Warren was appointed as a conservative Judge, in the history of the US, he will always be remembered for numerous rulings on civil rights especially in Brown v. Board of Education case, separation of church and state, and police arrest procedure in the United States.

 

[Bane Blade]

Either way the judicial setup of America will be a disaster for us, our taxpayer and justice seeker because it is very expensive.

BTW isn't the judiciary still an executive branch of the US setup?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Even in the US, the Judiciary is not fully free in a sense. First of all, the Judges of the Supreme Court (in fact all the federal Judges) have no term limit. They serve un till they are unable to work due to ailing health or if they are involved in some kind of crime or if they pass away.

These Judges are nominated by the President who in turn gets the feed back from the Attorney General on behalf of the Justice Department. These Judges generally are the members of the courts of appeal. Of course once a Judge is nominated by the President, he has to get confirmed by the Senate, at least 60 out of 100 (3/5th) senator votes are required for the confirmation.

Now as you can see, first of all, the Justice Department functions under the directive of the Attorney General who is nominated by the President. So when he forwards the names of the short listed Judges, he makes sure that these Judges agree (or tend to agree) with the basic philosophy (liberal or conservative) of the President and the ruling party. And this is where the things get politicized. At any rate, the short listed Judges are generally very well qualified irrespective of their political inclinations.

Examples also exist where the Judges did not quite agree with the President's philosophy who actually had appointed them in the first place.

I think that where the US system is a more mature one is that the debate over nominees is rarely over the 'political affiliations' (which is the case in Pakistan), though the Harriet Meirs issue might be put into that category, and more along the lines of 'ideological/philosophical differences' as you pointed out.

Pakistani society and systems are still a long way from such discourse over nominees - we would be happy so long as the judiciary was independent and honest, irrespective of whether they were right wing or left wing.

A suppose this is an example of the application of Maslow's theory of 'Hierarchy of needs' - Pakistani society is still struggling to achieve the most basic of needs and we'll be satisfied with anyone so long as they are honest.

 

[qsaark]

Either way the judicial setup of America will be a disaster for us, our taxpayer and justice seeker because it is very expensive

I guess their Jury system is very good. If we can adopt something from them, it should be the trial in front of the Jury. That way, the decision is not made by a single person. It will always be difficult to buy or intimidate several Jury members as compared to a single person.

BTW isn't the judiciary still an executive branch of the US setup?

No it is not, however, it does interact with the executive branch at several levels which in turn may affect the operations of the courts.

 

[Bane Blade]

But that is exactly what I meant that the system is too burdensome on our taxpayer and aid money.

 

[qsaark]

But that is exactly what I meant that the system is too burdensome on our taxpayer and aid money.

You talking about the procedure of Justice's appointment or the trial in front of a Jury?

 

[Bane Blade]

Ofcoyrse providing food lodging and expenditure along with the fact that most of the people are uneducated and then bringing them to trial is a bit of a wrong decision for our country.

 

[SSGPA1]

The Supreme Court reinstated Mr. Chaudhry in July 2007, and Mr. Musharraf managed to secure his election to another presidential term that October. But as the constitutionality of his election came under increased questioning, he declared a state of emergency on Nov. 3, suspending the Constitution and placing Mr. Chaudhry under house arrest once again[/COLOR].

I don't agree with this statement at all. CJ played a political role by first allowing Gen. Musharraf to take part in elections and then stopped the release of results.

This manupilation by Supreme Court pushed Gen. Musharraf to impose emergency.

If CJ Iftikhar was sincere then he would have rejected Gen. Musharraf's nomination papers instead of playing this cat and mouse game.

Any well, CJ Iftikhar has support of the majority so I wish him good luck and sincerely hope that he will try to liberate judiciary.

 

[qsaark]

Ofcoyrse providing food lodging and expenditure along with the fact that most of the people are uneducated and then bringing them to trial is a bit of a wrong decision for our country.

Allright, the jury system does not work like you think. It is mendatory for every US citizen to appear for a jury duty. Depending on State, a small sum in the name of JURY DUTY COMPENSATION is paid ($5-35/day) since the prospective jury members are selected from the local communities. I believe that a considerable portion of the urban Pakistan is educated. To be honest with you, any adult in the right mind can distinguish between right and wrong, education plays very little if any role in making obvious judgements. What you want is a jury composed of people from different walk of life and that is what happens here in US. At any rate, if Jury delivers a wrong decision, it can always be challenged in the courts of appeal, where it is decided by the Judges.

 

[XYON]

will u mind supporting ur point with some facts??

Iftikhar Chaudary is a PCO judge no different then his counterparts (no matter what anyone says). This is the same Iftikhar Chaudary who before all this was renowned for his extravagance at Government expense while his son was inducted in FIA and he was roaming around in armored BMW's at my expense. This is the same Iftikhar Chaudary who was despised by the lawyers community as a CJ because of his arrogance and sheer lack of respect for the lawyers of any level. This is the same Iftikhar Chaudary whose rise to the position of CJ has been marked with scandal and foul play. In short EDHI he is not! If this persons character would have been anywhere near, I would have been the first one to be on the streets to support him as a symbol of justice.

His fame is only because of his so-called anti-Musharraf stance which was politically used by the like of PML (N). Carrying Iftikhar Chaudary as a symbol of free judiciary in Pakistan is a mockery of common sense and against the very principal of supporting the institution rather then becoming a part of a personality cult (like PMLN).

We as a nation have to stop this IDOLIZING of personalities and start to think on a more level of strengthening our institutions (with all their short-comings) may they be the Government, Judiciary or political parties. The so called crap started by the Sharif brethren of MAI NAHI MANTA is nothing but hollow sloganeering!

 

[XYON]

Who is NOT politically tarnished in Pakistan? Give me one name, just one name.

This is a self-defeating question! Pakistan is full of many credible personalities who are not politically tarnished or corrupted! A man's character is his best investment in life. By your argument above, we should then let thieves, murderers and corrupt rule us forever & without exception! Please try to grow-up and enhance your mindset because you and I as Pakistanis deserve better then what we have already!

Finally, I respect my Supreme Court, I respect the law of my land, I respect the Chief Justice (not because of his personality but because of what he is tasked to represent) and whatever my differences are (unlike the Nawaz brethren) I do not disrespect the judiciary just because I do not agree with its member's credentials.

 

[Bane Blade]

In that case I think the jury system would work best in our courts so long as they are not harrassed into making decisions.

 

[qsaark]

This is a self-defeating question!

In fact it is.

Pakistan is full of many credible personalities who are not politically tarnished or corrupted!

Name one who is not politically tarnished yet qualified for the post of CJ.

A man's character is his best investment in life. By your argument above, we should then let thieves, murderers and corrupt rule us forever & without exception!

These are bookish things. I also believe in them but in the real world things happen very differently. Pakistani society from head to toe is corrupt. One has to accept this as a fact of life even though it is bitter. We have to select or elect a less evil person over a more evil one. That is the best that can be done under the given circumstances. And if this process is allowed to proceed uninterruptedly for a long period of time, eventually, more and more better people will come forward.

Please try to grow-up and enhance your mindset because you and I as Pakistanis deserve better then what we have already!

I am trying to grow up and working on enhancing my mindset. Thanks for pointing out my shortcomings.

 

[Bane Blade]

Has anyone realised though that an apparant opposition Cheif Justice is bound to be more beneficial in terms of justice because he will really help keep check and balance of the government. Members like e-pool we don't need to see theives murderers in our gov but honestly no honest man is actually standing up in any elections or hold a very strong mandate, no danda or superhonest leader will bring progress that infact is a very low mindset because only loyal hard working Pakistanis will bring progress to our country. We have leaders that are elected on mostly votes of people who don't even know how to write elections in any language to change that eiher you educate people and make them understand or let time slowly sort things out through democracy where people will learn from the fact that they can vote either way.