US FUNDED BAR ASSOCIATION

SC JUDGES EVERYWHERE, APPOINTED BY PRESIDENTS

Having fattened himself on money received from the US Government, now the Bar Association President and others of his grossly partisan ilk are attacking the President's appointment of a new Supreme Court Judge.

Presidents have appointed SC judges in this country as long as anybody cares to remember, and this includes the UNP President who authored the Constitution, but abruptly, the sharks in the legal community now say everything needs to be turned on its head.

This of course is for the simple reason that they only want SC Judges that are partisan towards their cause.

On the subject of course of the US providing funding for Bar Association projects, in that country which these aforementioned worthies look up to for examples of good governance, Judges are routinely appointed by the President as his sole prerogative.

Not stopping at that, US Presidents go on to boast about their appointments, with Democrats holding forth on how many liberal judges they were able to appoint to the Supreme Court, and Republicans bragging about their appointments of conservative lawyers to the Bench.

We carry in the opposite page today an article by a known legal analyst in the US speculating on the Judges that President Obama can appoint before his second term is up.

There is hardly a country, for the information of these fulminating legal eagles, that does not have the Executive in the form of a President appointing Supreme Court judges.

This is for the simple reason that any other appointing authority will be vested with unreasonable powers if entrusted with the responsibility of appointing judges to superior courts.

The presidential system of appointments in the US for instance recognizes the fact that Judges can and should be expected to promote the general policy plank of the incumbent President, though of course always doing so within the limits of existing law.

It is a fact that the US President not only appoints the Supreme Court judges he wants, but also after the appointment poses for a photograph with the Judges concerned ... never failing to make a speech extolling each individual Judge's virtues.

There is however a Congressional Committee comprised entirely of politicians that whet the candidate for suitability before appointment, but such a body nevertheless will not be welcome here in Sri Lanka with the Bar Association types, as they have always maintained that politicians should play no part in investigating SC Judges, as was evidenced during last year's impeachment drama.

Considering all of this, the current appointing authority, the President is the one person that the American sponsors of the Bar Association would endorse for the appointment of SC Judges in Sri Lanka.

The problem with the BASL sharks is that the legality of process is the last thing on their minds as they are dictated to exclusively by partisan considerations.

For example, some speak of the 17th Amendment which was repealed, which piece of legislation never worked however even under the former President who has now joined forces with the BASL and opposition types.

Why didn't the former President ensure that the Constitutional Council was properly constituted?

It was for the simple reason that the 17th Amendment took away her constitutional right to appoint judges of her choice.

There is no basis whatsoever on which the BASL or any other organization of lawyers can oppose the appointment of a known President's Counsel as a new Supreme Court Judge as there are no integrity questions that militate against the appointment of that worthy.

It is absurd to oppose the appointment of a Supreme Court Judge on the sole basis that he or she is being appointed by the President.

If this was a cause for opposing judicial appointments to the higher courts almost all SC and Appeal Court judges in most functioning democracies today will be unqualified for office!