Court Justices are appointed on basis of vacancy, as we don't have regular elections for Court Justices. If nominations are to be put forward by the Speaker, then it would make more sense to do what we do with the military, and have the Speaker decide all of them, then have the Delegate approve, and it goes to vote. In real terms that means that the Delegate is more a rubber stamp, and doesn't say no unless the pick is really extremely out of order - which we've never had so far with military appointments, and I don't think we'd have it with Court picks either. That would probably be the way to do it, if it went with the original proposal of the PM deciding, as then there is a check on the PM only if necessary by the Delegate. If the Delegate refuses they'd have to have a really good argument to do so, or they could be recalled or their position called into question.
Effectively to put this into force though, two Court Justices would have to resign, even assuming this is amended into the mandate.
It would have to have a section within the proposed change that describes what happens to existing Court Justices, meaning are they all forced to resign, and will nominations be put forward after that?