Open call before history and the public

Why the word "supreme" was removed from the Supreme Board of Judges and Prosecutors (HSYK) in the constitutional amendments, I could not receive an answer from anybody.

Could it be a reflection of the ruling party's mentality of regarding only the "elected" as superior? If so, then we have to start worrying.

The topic became an imminent one because the deadline expired on May 4 for the application of the seven seats that would be elected by the parliament for the new Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HSK).  

Out of the total 13 members of the new HSK, six of them will be determined by the executive organ: The president will appoint four members, the justice minister will head the council, the undersecretary of the ministry will also be a permanent member. Parliament, on the other hand, will elect seven members. 

Will "political" views be dominant in these appointments? Or will the overriding concern be electing the members to a council that has "equal" significance as the legislation and the executive as well as one that is expected to function with independence?

First of all, can the judiciary that was formed with "appointed" judges be equal to the legislation and the executive that were formed with the "elected?"

Of course they are equal; the appointments to the judiciary are not regarded as an appointment of a general manager or an undersecretary.
 
Sovereignty contains three powers; the legislation, executive and judicial powers. These are equal; they only have different duties and authorizations.

If appointments are done not based on professional competence and impartiality criteria, but with the haphazardness of "let him or her be from us," then the confidence in the judiciary will be...