I consider the Judicial Bar Council an elite mob, (others describe it as Old Boys Club, just like the SCORP) therefore it will most likely to push for a candidate that has its culture of mendacity and “belongingness.”
Opening the interview to the public in the selection of the next Ombudsman or for that matter, a jurist, will not ensure the appointment of the most qualified candidate who is known for probity and integrity.
If the closed-door interview of an applicant appears good enough to the JBC, it would appear good enough to the public and the media, unless we admit that the public and the media have a better tool than the JBC in ferreting out a fraud from the patriot.
With the emptiness our public and the media have shown in the past decades, I seriously doubt if their weighing into the interview process of a candidate, can improve our chance of appointing a better candidate.
Besides, we put so much emphasis on the interview where candidates have been extensively prepped to answer any curve-ball question, with the most “ideal answer” that the candidate or his handlers can imagine. It is for this reason why modern courts would not admit any evidence of a polygraph test taken from a witness because the most effective liar can easily breeze through it.
Please recall that when Merci was asked if she can be independent and her answer was:
“I willl conduct my duties without fear or favor,” –
You could almost sense that the question was asked her prior to the interview and that the answer was already provided her by her handlers.
These are all cheap speech which the JBC considered enough to separate the chaff from the grain. It’s pure baloney!
Psychologist George Steiner noted that “The human capacity to lie, stands at the heart of speech.”
And Psychologist David L. Smith said:
“Notwithstanding the Machiavellian finesse displayed by nonhuman primates, and presumably by our hominid ancestors, there can be little doubt that the evolution of language vastly extended our deceptive repertoire. Mere words make few demands on the speaker. They require no commitment and only a minimal expenditure of energy. It is also too easy to make promises without the slightest intention of following through on them. Words, therefore, are only credible when backed up by biologically costly actions or other signs of honest engagement.”
Supreme Court Justice Kagan speaking of the interview process conducted by the U.S. Senate said that the hearings had taken on “an air of vacuity and farce,” with senators “incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public.”
While Justice Bork, a Supreme Court nominee that was rejected by the Senate because he was so honest about his legal views:
“Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion, was a serious and wholly unjustifiable judicial usurpation of state legislative authority,” he said.
In 1985, he had pooh-poohed the importance of prior court rulings.
“I don’t think that in the field of constitutional law precedent is all that important … If you become convinced that a prior court has misread the Constitution, I think it’s your duty to go back and correct it.”
The Senate considered his views anathema to its own concept of what the court is all about and therefore botched his nomination to the Supreme Court. Justice Bork, from my standpoint, was one of the greatest jurists America could have.
Similary, if the JBC cannot process the honesty of the applicant like the way the U.S. Senate cannot process the honesty of Justice Bork, then our option is to apppoint a dishonest Ombdusman. We might as well greet our Chimpanzee Ombudsman. Atleast this chimp cannot cannot verbalize his dishonesty – the way humans could.