You may be interested in: CNM swears in new Supreme Court judges
He said that reevaluating someone at 3, 6, or 9 months does not provide new relevant information, and entails an unnecessary use of institutional time and resources, which is why the adoption of the suggested measure would allow the CNM, in the jurist’s opinion, to concentrate its efforts on the evaluation of profiles that were not evaluated and that will aspire in the next call.He argued that the modification he proposes would avoid unnecessary burdens for both the CNM and the professionals who legitimately aspire to serve from the highest judicial court.“Professional skills, moral solvency, and technical profile do not change overnight. What I propose would reinforce the efficiency, reasonableness, and coherence of the evaluation system, without in any way affecting the discretionary power of the constitutional body to decide, in each case, on the final suitability of the applicants,” he said.
“This is a proposal aimed at strengthening institutionalism, optimizing the management of public time, avoiding duplicating evaluations in short periods, which conveys the wrong message. Which one? That the previous effort was insufficient”.



