Although I had no doubt the General Council of the Judiciary would applaud the fact that judges had spoken out against the amnesty law, which has not yet been approved, as it is currently being processed in the Congress of Deputies, I was interested in seeing what kind of trickery they would employ to validate something we all know they would have criticised if another group of judges had spoken out in favour of the amnesty law. The truth is that the explanation is complex, it is tailor-made based on more than debatable premises and has a markedly partisan position. It is in line with the Popular Party's (PP) ideals, who has made political confrontation its main argument and transformed politics into a matter for judges and not for politicians. By recklessly handing over the keys of legislative power to the judiciary, as their elders did in the past with military power.
Well, that is the explanation of the General Council of the Judiciary and its so-called Ethics Commission, in the decision issued: they consider lawful for judges to attend rallies against political actions should they consider that the rule of law and the judiciary's independence are in danger. If they consider them to be in danger that is enough, it does not need to actually be in danger. What's more: it would be lawful if it wasn't, as is the case, and they thought otherwise. It is a really low bar for a collective that then has to impart justice with its rulings. It is enough to think that their independence is in danger simply because laws they don't like are passed, that make them uncomfortable. Thus, the Ethics Commission considers that attendance at such events is in line with the principles of judicial ethics, provided that one condition is met: that the judge has "an honest, well-considered and sincere conviction" that the action being condemned "may affect the rule of law".
Too many empty words to endorse an action that is political and that, should it be accepted for this political statement, must be the norm for all possible political declarations, whether they come from one side or the other.
An honest, thought out and sincere conviction, says the committee, that rule of law is affected. Let's see: honest, i.e. decent, demure, modest. What is the criteria? Thought out or, in other words, carefully and calmly considered. For how long? With what intensity? And finally, sincere conviction. This does not give many specific clues, but it could be defined as the judge in question acting sincerely and coming to a conclusion by using logical arguments. In other words, he can do what he wants according to his own free will. Too many empty words to validate an action that is political and, should it be accepted for this political statement, must be the norm for all possible political pronouncements, whether they fall on one side or the other.
Because this has not always been the case. At the height of the Catalan pro-independence process in Catalonia, in 2015, a judge named Santiago Vidal, was removed from his post because he spoke at a conference about the futures of an independent Catalonia. The General Council of the Judiciary banned him from exercising his judicial career for three years. 33 supposedly pro-Catalan independence judges were exposed on the front page of the newspaper La Razón with the intention of obstructing the performance of their duties. Nobody endorsed them, nor did the judicial bodies protect them. Nor was it said that their position conformed to the principles of judicial ethics because they had arrived at it after an honest, thoughtful and sincere conviction. You don't have to be the brightest bulb to conclude that these are not arguments that can be shifted to any position. They are only valid if they have a specific one. The one the right wing defends. That is why some receive a pardon and others are singled out.