aoa dear members.i have some independent thoughts over the issue but before bringing my own i would first comment on the discussion of the two respectable members

@floydian & tx ned
whatever u both are saying is accurate n in line w/ the prevailing practice.the issue is all about what,who should have done n what not.the dispute is:
First CJ(who should by law be consulted for appointment of judges)is saying he wasn't consulted
Second executive denying the same n saying that he was...
at the out look it seems like settling personal scores but in real its not n from here my personal thought begins

My opinion:
the clash b/w judiciary n executive is healthy.CJ whatever his personal being is,holds an office which has potential to bring a change.judiciary in the past have been exploited by the so called doctrine of necessity, n today if institutions are themselves,rather than the executive,are taking corrective measures,empowering the institutions for finally achieving the desired level of good governance,this is some thing to celebrate....democracy has its own corrective measures,it is said,so we must not fear the judiciary taking unfair advantage of public's trust....
praying for enlightenment of minds
Regards