You always end up returning to your starting point, and you don't always do it in a useful way. In order to be immediately updated, the general discussion on the delegated law for the reform of the Superior Council of the Judiciary is resumed in the Justice Commission, that is, to be clear, of what is considered the Reform of all Reforms which, in , it would seem to aim to purge the judiciary from the distortions and vices of the still rampant "currentism" to return it then restored (at least hopefully) to the community of associates.

Whether or not it is a project capable of reflecting concrete and tangible practical implications, only time will tell, since, for two years now, despite "Palamara" as a "cold case" taken as a paradigm of a “System” with much more meaningful connotations, and despite the urgency of having to proceed, nothing has actually been possible and / or wanted to do about it. To say it all, the nodal point of the legislative intervention should focus solely, and / or in any case predominantly, on the electoral "device" of the members of the Superior Council, to be achieved through a reform that can eradicate, once and for all, " understandings ”,“ alliances ”and distorting practices of regulatory rules aimed at protecting the correct electoral competition mechanisms.

It would be a matter of conducting a purge legal policy operation useful to avoid not only, and in the immediate future, the risk of calling the next elections under the regime of obsolete rules and now unsustainable mechanisms that would have no other effect than to continue to nourish that articulated and ancient "system", but also, and above all, to conduct a legal policy operation useful for guaranteeing the full and efficient restoration of the balance, constitutionally guaranteed, between the Powers of the State, which, at the same time of their explanation, presuppose, at least in principle, the "internal" (in relation to the specific category of belonging) and "external" (in relation to reciprocal relations) independence of their individual representatives.

The undertaking is undoubtedly titanic, nor can it be expected that it will be completed in a few hectic months just to follow up on an understandable "input" of supranational importance. But this is another story and it would be necessary to open a further debate which, at this moment, would only have the flavor of impromptuness. One detail, however, seems to have emerged in an unequivocally expressed way: despite everything, the Superior Council of the Judiciary must continue and exist, and must resist. The postulate is monolithic in its impact and, like it or not, presupposes at least a threefold order of reflection: the one whereby any potential reform of the electoral system of the Superior Council of the Judiciary cannot ignore the appropriate consideration of the plurality of cultures and souls that characterize the Judiciary itself in its articulated subjective complexity; the other, no less important, for which the new system by setting up cannot and should not mortify the choice of voters and respect for gender representation; the last, the most complex, which, in acting as a synthesis tool, presupposes the rational harmonization of the first two useful to achieve the elimination of the dangers deriving from "degenerative currentism", that is, from "human" and "poor management" politics "of the different" souls "existing and operating within the" category ".