THE APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES IN THE NETHERLANDS ANTILLES VS THE USA
Judge Samuel Alito would not face a political debate in the Netherlands Antilles
US Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito answered a lengthy questionnaire from the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Committee will begin considering his nomination today, 10 January 2006. Both lawmakers and special interest groups are participating in the debate. The process of filling a vacancy of especially the Supreme Court often result in (sometimes bitter) confirmation battles. It is unclear based on which considerations and ideological/political ideas a nominee will be chosen or rejected.
Courts in the Netherlands Antilles consist solely of Queen appointed judges; they are not elected like State judges in the USA. There is no political confirmation process like for federal and Supreme Court judges in the USA. Although judges are civil servants, they act in their judicial capacity with complete independence from the government and the parliament (i.e. the house of representatives). Judges are appointed for life. There is no political influence or pressure regarding their appointment.
Judges must be selected because of their ability as jurists, not simply because of their political views. Judges are not supposed to render judgments based on viewing the law with a strictly political lens; when deciding a case they must be governed by principles of law and the merits of the case. But their political views undoubtedly influence their decisions.
The question therefore remains, should judges be appointed with or without political confirmation (and if with, how can politics be controlled)? And as far as US State judges are concerned, should they be elected or appointed (the latter with or without – controlled – political confirmation)? In other words: is it possible to separate law from politics (or at least political pressure)?
Karel Frielink
Attorney (lawyer) / Partner
