Joaquín Urías, a 56-year-old jurist from Seville, has been teaching fundamental rights theory at the University of Seville for three decades, where he is a professor in the Constitutional Law department. He is a very active Twitter user and frequent collaborator in media outlets, and is considered one of the leading jurists on the left and one of the most incisive voices on the Spanish judicial system. In his latest book, “La Justicia en el banquillo” (The Justice in the Dock), he critically examines the judicial system. He argues that judges in Spain are not taught to be impartial, and that despite their efforts, they are often influenced by biases or prejudices, leading them to act in ways that reflect their own beliefs in their decisions.
Urías contends in his book that there is a lack of impartiality and neutrality in the Spanish justice system. He attributes this situation to a combination of historical issues, such as a very ideologically homogenous judicial career path and the method of accessing the judicial elite, along with newer challenges like political polarization and the impact of social media. He argues that “some judges” have become political actors, and this phenomenon occurs at all levels of the judiciary, with more significant consequences when it happens at the highest levels where key national issues are decided. He highlights that this bias can lead to judges prioritizing their beliefs over the will of democratically elected legislators.
The author highlights the conservative ideological alignment of the majority of judges in Spain, emphasizing that this is reflected in their judgments and public participation. He argues that this alignment is not necessarily a problem as long as judges can maintain their impartiality, but the issue arises when their conservative leanings are evident in their decisions. Urías discusses cases of lawfare in his book, where he suggests that the justice system is being used to influence political outcomes, particularly targeting left-wing politicians or separatists. He notes that this phenomenon is less common with right-wing politicians, as the judiciary tends to protect the rights of those aligned with conservative ideologies.
Urías expresses concern about the rise of “Twitter judges,” who he believes have become political actors, often operating under anonymity. He suggests that judges in Spain are unrestrained on social media, expressing controversial views against politicians who do not share their opinions, which raises doubts about their impartiality in the courtroom. He calls for regulation in this area, proposing that judges should require approval from the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) before expressing public opinions. He emphasizes the need for greater accountability and professionalism among judges in public discourse.
In order to improve public trust in the judiciary, Urías proposes removing the CGPJ’s discretion to select members of the Supreme Court, a proposal supported by Vicente Guilarte, the current acting president of the Council. He argues that by limiting the CGPJ’s power, political parties would be less inclined to influence judicial appointments, thus avoiding the current deadlock in the Council’s renewal for over five years. He believes that the selection process for the CGPJ should involve Congress and the Senate, as the Council plays a critical role in judicial policy decisions. Urías advocates for a more inclusive and transparent system to ensure the independence and credibility of the judiciary.
