This paper seeks to enrich existing empirical research on substantive representation in the judicial system by exploring a case study of the Honorable Justice (retired) Salim Joubran, the first ethnic-minority judge appointed to the Supreme Court of Israel. By employing a dual methodology of qualitative discourse analysis and dissenting quantitative studies, the study investigates when, why and how he dissented in controversial cases, which are defined as cases that resulted in non-unanimous votes. The study shows that a quantitative study on dissenting opinions of a minority judge alone did not provide comprehensive conclusions. The complementary qualitative discourse analysis shows that in cases that challenged state actions that impacted his social group, Joubran employed distinct strategies and reasoning that are akin to feminist judgments approach. Hence, the study adds to existing research on judicial diversity indicating that women and ethnic minorities judges not only share common challenges but might also operate similar reasoning strategies. In light of these insights, the study calls for employing the combined qualitative and quantitative methodology on examining judgments focusing on dissenting opinions of women and ethnic minority judges as it offers a complex understanding of substantive representation and provides answers regarding the socio-legal effects of group affiliation on judgments.
BarzilaiG (1998) Courts as hegemonic institutions: The Israeli supreme court in a comparative perspective. Israel Affairs5: 15–33.
3.
BarzilaiGMeydaniARosentalM (Dec. 17, 2018) The personalization of judicial review: The cohesiveness of judicial nominations and constitutional courts. Address at the Comparative High Court Decision Making Workshop. Jerusalem, Israel.
4.
Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation, 1992, S.H. 114.
5.
Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, 1992, S.H 150.
6.
BirnhakMGoserskyD (1999) Specialized seats, minority opinions, and judicial pluralism. Tel Aviv University Law Review22: 499.
7.
C.A.P. 7669/15 Salah Mahajna v. The State of Israel (Nevo, April 18, 2016).
8.
ChewKPKelleyER (2012) The realism of race in judicial decision making: An empirical analysis of Plaintiffs’ race and Judges’ race. Harvard Journal on Racial & Ethnic Justice28: 91–115.
9.
CianciardoJ (2010) The principle of proportionality: The challenges of human rights. Journal of Civil Law Studies3(1): 178–186.
10.
EpsteinLLandesWMPosnerRA (2011) Why (and when) judges dissent: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Legal Analysis3(1): 101–137.
11.
FishmanG (2006) Sentencing outcomes in a multinational society: When judges, defendants and victims Can Be either arabs or jews. European Journal of Criminology3(1): 69–84.
12.
Gazal-AyalOSulitzeanu-KenanR (2010) Let My people Go: Ethnic In-group bias in judicial decisions – evidence from a randomized natural experiment. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies7(3): 403–428.
13.
GrossmanGGazal-AyalOPimentel SD. and M, et al. (2016) Descriptive representation and judicial outcomes in multiethnic societies. American Journal of Political Science60(1): 44–69.
14.
H.C.J 3166/14 Gutman v. Attorney General et al. (Nevo, March 3, 2015).
15.
H.C.J. 1213/10 Nir v. The Speaker of the Knesset (Nevo, February 23, 2012).
16.
H.C.J. 2311/11 Sabah v. The Knesset (Nevo, September 17, 2014).
17.
H.C.J. 2684/12 12th of Cheshvan, The Movement for the Strengthening of Tolerance in Religious Education v. The Attorney General (Nevo, December 9, 2015).
18.
H.C.J. 466/07 Galon, Meretz-Yahad v. The Attorney General (Nevo, January 11, 2012).
19.
H.C.J. 6706/14 Zoabi v. The Knesset’s Ethics Committee (Nevo, February 10, 2015).
20.
H.C.J. 7052/03 Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights v. The Minister of the Interior (Nevo, May 14, 2006).
21.
HunterR (2015a) More than just a different face? Judicial diversity and decision-making. Current Legal Problems68(1): 119–141.
22.
HunterR (2015b) Analysing judgments from a feminist perspective. Legal Information Management15(1): 8–11.
23.
IfillSA (2000) Racial diversity on the bench: Beyond role models and public confidence. Washington & Lee Law Review57(2): 405–495.
24.
JasperA (June. 25, 2019) On The social and professional composition of the judiciary. Address at the Empirical Studies of Public Law and Human Rights Workshop, Jerusalem, Israel.
25.
Johnson KevinRLuisF-R (2004) A principled approach to the quest for racial diversity on the judiciary. Mich. J. Race & L. 10: 5–53.
26.
KastellecJP (2013) Racial diversity and judicial influence on appellate courts. American Journal of Political Science57(1): 167–168.
27.
Kumar NarayanPSmythR (2007) What explains dissent on the high court of Australia - An empirical assessment using a cointegration and error correction approach. Journal of Empirical Studies4(2):401–425.
28.
Levy ArielY (2018) Judicial Diversity In Israel: An Empirical Study Of Judges, Lawyers and Law Students. PhD Thesis, University College of London, UK.
29.
MoranLJ (2006) Judicial diversity and the challenge of sexuality: Some preliminary findings. Sydney Law Review28(4): 565.
30.
MansbridgeJ (1999) Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent “Yes”. The Journal of Politics67(3): 628–657.
31.
MautnerM (2011) Law and the Culture of Israel. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
32.
PelegIWaxmanD (2011) ISRAEL’S PALESTINIANS: The Conflict Within. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
PosnerR.A (2007) How Judges Think. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press.
34.
RackleyE (2013) Women, Judging and the Judiciary: From Difference to Diversity. New York, USA: Routledge.
35.
RahavGRabinYYuchtman-YaarE (2015) Disparities between jews and arabs in the Israeli criminal justice system. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law13: 233–246.
36.
SenM (2017) Diversity, qualifications, and ideology: How female and minority judges have changed or not changed overtime. Wisconsin Law Review367: 368–399.
37.
ShayoMZussmanA (2011) Judicial ingroup bias in the shadow of terrorism. Journal of Economics126 (3): 1447–1484.
38.
SmythR (2005) The role of attitudinal, institutional and environmental factors in explaining variations in the dissent rate on the high court of Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science40(4): 519–540.
Weinshall-MargelK (2011) Attitudinal and Neo-institutional models of supreme court decision making: An empirical and comparative perspective from Israel. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies8: 556–586.
42.
Weinshall-MargelK (2016) Law and Ideology in Supreme Court Decision-Making: A Comparative And Quantitative Analysis. Jerusalem, Israel: Hebrew University Sacher Press: 75–76.
43.
WeissP (2018, 31 July) A very, very, very Bad Law — justice joubran on Israel’s New nation state Law. Mondoweiss.
44.
YosefB (2020) Constitutional dialogue in Israel: Two points of view. Law & Business22: 327–418.
