October 11, 2007
THE REFORMATION ROLLS ON...:
Law of God versus law of man: A tantalising reform of the Saudi judicial system is under way (The Economist, 10/11/07)
[E]ven the most reform-resistant Saudis have long bemoaned the capriciousness of their courts. In theory, the Koran is held to be the Saudi constitution, and Islamic sharia its law. In practice, a patchwork of royal decrees frames the way the monarchy functions. A few ministerial committees regulate important commercial disputes, but it is a body of some 700 clerics, chosen by each other from a pool of Wahhabi scholars, that defines sharia as they see it, and chooses how to apply it. Its rulings are often harsh, including beheading for the crime of witchcraft, but sometimes also lenient, as in cases of rape or wife-beating. Sometimes it is slow, leaving thousands of abandoned women unable to secure a divorce.This is why a recently announced overhaul of the legal system has been greeted with general relief. When the new rules go into effect, the country will have three tiers of courts, instead of the current two. Instead of applying their understanding of sharia to any case brought before them, judges will now preside over courts specialising in criminal, commercial, labour or family issues. The judiciary council that used to act as the highest court and was controlled by the most reactionary clerics in the kingdom, has been relegated to administration. A new ten-man Supreme Court will be filled mostly with royal appointees, presumably of a more diverse pedigree. The changes will be sweetened with an extra $2 billion in state funding for the judiciary.
They'd be wise to avoid the mistake the West made and allow the monarchy to retain a veto over Supreme Court decisions. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 11, 2007 4:34 PM
Not a great idea, given that the Saudi royalty makes George III look like a brilliant and wise ruler.
Posted by: PapayaSF at October 11, 2007 5:25 PMThere's no mistake in the original plan. The executive and legislative branches can ignore Supreme decisions. The only mistake is how rarely they do it. Congress regularly adds riders to laws saying that the law is not subject to judicial review. But ever since Brown vs. Board of Education, the Executive branch has quaked in fear to the fourth branch of government, the media, and refuses to exercise their power. Note that the Left ignores court cases with impunity, whenever it suits them. Anyone remember Elian Gonzalez? Compare that with the spineless response to Terry Schiavo.
Posted by: Brad at October 11, 2007 6:21 PMThe best thing a president could do is announce that he's taking his vow seriously to uphold the constitution, and then shut down abortion clinics in Washington, DC. That would let the Supremes know that they are not the only ones sworn to uphold the constitution, it would send a great example to every state, it would inject some immediate necessary humility into every court decision that attempts to legislate from the bench, and it would dramatically reduce the fight over Supreme court appointments.
Posted by: Brad at October 11, 2007 6:26 PMIgnoring them would trivialize the Court. Vetoing them reconizes the Court's power to do ill as well as good.
Posted by: oj at October 11, 2007 8:45 PMWe might not have a monarchy but we have a House of Lords. It's called the Supreme Court. Its members are insulated from politics, appointed for life, mostly selected from what passes for American aristocracy (Harvard graduates) ... Nowadays they do enough legislating from the bench to be considered a third house of the legislature.
Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger at October 11, 2007 11:42 PMOh my. I thought I saw an opportunity to mention one of my pet theories. I then realized the original post had already referred to the Supreme Court.
So... If the most aristocratic branch of government is so messed up, wouldn't we expect a monarchy to be even worse?
Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger at October 11, 2007 11:51 PMTrivializing the Supreme Court by about half would be wonderful.
Posted by: Brad at October 12, 2007 4:14 AMThe less brilliant the better.
Posted by: oj at October 12, 2007 6:25 AM