Murmuring Judges

"All professions are conspiracies against the laity."  So wrote George Bernard Shaw.  For Nicolas Sarkozy, one profession in particular is in a conspiracy against him - the judiciary, filled with left-wing sentiment.  Just as he was entertaining the press pack by stoking rumours of making an attempt to return to the French presidency, charges of corruption come racing out of leftfield.  Already embroiled in the Liliane Bettencourt affair, this was the last thing Sarkozy needed when trying to resurrect his political ambitions.
As the third pillar of modern governance (along with the executive and the legislature), the judiciary does have a habit of having its name blackened by those who oppose its judgements.  Silvio Berlusconi, former prime minister of Italy and now convicted criminal, was a master at playing to his base and wider Italian sympathy by lambasting 'communist judges' out to get him.  Eventually, they succeeded, not because of zealous ideology but because Berlusconi was as corrupt as they come.  His repeated entry to the highest level of politics is an indictment of the moral turpitude of Italian democracy that has never fully recovered from the widespread mafia-politician links exposed in the 1990s.
In longer established democracies, the crime of the senior lawmen is not so much one of ideology as of philosophy, even existentialism.  In the England and Wales, the judges are often accused of advancing a distinctly and aggressively secularist interpretation of the law.  Once mocked as the conservative establishment, they still are but with a decidedly 'progressive' slant.  In the USA, both sides are angry with judges, notably the Supreme Court.  Right-wingers lament the Roe vs Wade ruling that legalised abortion nationwide and often snarl about 'campaigning justices' at lower levels.  Some activists are even wistful that segregation was outlawed.  On the left's side, they are frequently disappointed by a Supreme Court that has been dominated by conservatives for the last 30 years and often on a 5-4 split hands down very right-wing decisions.  That these justices can choose the time of their retirement (or go on until death) means they themselves politicise the process, stepping down when a president of their political hue occupies the White House (though some justices, likes cardinals who become popes, turn out to be very different to how their backers imagined they would be).
This conflict exists in less democratically advanced parts of the developing world.  The Pakistani Supreme Court is very conservative and often finds itself at odds with whichever government is in power in Islamabad.  Recently, the Thai Constitutional Court in effect forced Yingluck Shinawatara from the post of premier on a technicality.
Sarkozy, though angry, should keep his counsel to himself.  For a senior public figure like himself to impugn the integrity of the judiciary damages democracy in the long-run.  He is no Dreyfus.  Moreover, Sarkozy should be aware that he himself was attacked for bending the judiciary to his will to destroy the aspirations of his right-wing rival, the aristocratic Dominique de Villepin.  If there is any crumb of comfort for him in this dark hour, he will know that de Villepin was acquitted of all charges.