A Cuppa Confusion: Musk, Mattarella, and the Italian Judiciary

Elon Musk’s recent critique of Italy’s legal system, shared with his characteristic flair on X, has left many of us wondering:

is there a manual on how to become an expert in everything while understanding, well… not very much?

Musk’s comments about our judiciary showed all the tact and insight of a bull in an Italian china shop. His misunderstanding of Italian law and apparent dismissal of President Mattarella’s statement reminded us that perhaps being a billionaire doesn’t make one a constitutional expert.

To start with the basics, the Italian judiciary isn’t exactly a family-run business where a friendly politician or wealthy uncle can pull some strings. Italian judges are not political appointees, nor do they owe their robes to powerful lobbies. No, here in Italy, judges go through a rigorous, merit-based selection process, which safeguards them from political whimsy and keeps the judiciary blissfully independent. The concept might seem quaint, but this independence forms a core part of what we call democracy.

The Italian system is built on the separation of powers—the three independent pillars that preserve our democracy: the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. These branches don’t just function side by side; they actively check and balance each other, ensuring that no one body can wield too much power. It’s a system designed with the wisdom of centuries, where the judiciary isn’t just a rubber stamp for political ambitions. Each pillar has its own distinct role, but when they work together, they preserve the fundamental values of fairness and justice.

Now, across the Atlantic, on the other side of the pond the situation is quite different. In the United States, high-profile judges—like those on the Supreme Court—are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, often scrutinized as much for their ideological leanings as for their legal acumen. The U.S. judiciary, as a result, often has to walk a tightrope over political biases and public pressure. Italian law, however, is blissfully free from such partisanship, rooted instead in a democratic structure that separates powers with the strictness of a traditional Italian grandmother enforcing curfew.

If we are talking about potential issues within the judiciary, say, a biased judge, it’s crucial to remember the role of the gerarchia delle fonti, or the hierarchy of sources, within our legal system. The laws themselves must be the target of any criticism, never the judges or their supposed bias unless there is a legal basis for such claims. This means that even if a judge were somehow suspected of bias, the criticism should always stem from their interpretation or application of the law—not from personal biases or political pressures. Otherwise, we risk undermining the stato di diritto, the rule of law, which is the very foundation of our democracy.

Now, we come to the gerarchia delle fonti, or the hierarchy of sources, in our legal system. Italian law prioritizes the Constitution, with EU law following close behind and even superseding national law when there’s a conflict. This hierarchy reflects Italy’s commitment to being a respectful European team player. We’ve built a seamless, if occasionally bureaucratic, system that honors the Supremacy Principle—whereby our courts uphold European directives and regulations alongside Italian law. It’s complex, certainly, but so is spaghetti, and we all know how that turned out.

Then there’s the matter of respect. Musk’s comments seemed to brush aside President Mattarella’s concerns about the judiciary with a tone that, in British parlance, we might call “cheeky”—though not in a particularly charming way. Musk may fancy himself as a straight-talker, but here, his bluntness missed the mark, disregarding the structures and principles that define Italian law. Even if his remarks reflect an American perspective, the fact that they struck a chord with some Italians is where things become concerning.

Because here’s the rub: some Italian politicians, including a handful from the far-right, seem to find Musk’s criticism rather appealing. Figures like Matteo Salvini have taken to questioning the judiciary’s rulings whenever they don’t fit their political tastes. They call for “reform,” suggesting more “oversight” (read: control), which rings alarm bells about our hard-won judicial independence. Letting politicians dictate judicial appointments and decisions would put us on a slippery slope to undermining a core pillar of democracy. Salvini’s stance, much like Musk’s, seems rooted in a fantasy of bending the judiciary to their will, blissfully unaware—or perhaps unconcerned—about the consequences.

In a recent legal context, consider the case where Italian judges ruled on the issue of undocumented migrants being transferred to Malta. While some political figures decried the decision, the legal reasoning should be the focus of any critique. The gerarchia delle fonti dictates that the law, not political opinion, should guide judicial decisions. Criticizing a judge’s ruling should never veer into questioning the independence of the judiciary itself. If we start down that road, we risk opening the door to political interference and erosion of judicial integrity.

The Italian judiciary is, for lack of a better phrase, the bedrock of our legal system. It’s designed to operate independently, free from political interference, and in line with the democratic principles enshrined in our Constitution. This isn’t a bureaucratic quirk; it’s an intentional structure, a guard against the kind of power grabs that history warns us about. We’ve kept it this way to ensure justice for all, not just for those with powerful connections or political influence. The independence of our courts is more than a legal technicality; it’s a safeguard for fairness and equality.

And so, while Musk’s comments may have been made with all the authority of someone who has spent a casual five minutes Googling “Italian law,” the real issue lies not with him but with those in Italy who find his words resonant. Dismantling the structure of judicial independence would be more than a bad idea—it would be like sending an Italian chef to England and telling him the national dish is boiled. Some things just don’t translate.

So, let’s raise a glass—of prosecco, perhaps?—to the Italian judiciary, to our Constitution, and to the stubborn tradition of keeping justice and politics miles apart. As Musk and certain politicians ponder our system with their oversized but underinformed opinions, we’ll carry on safeguarding the checks, balances, and quirky complexities that make our legal system worth defending. Because, in the end, it’s not just about rules—it’s about preserving the core of democracy, the stato di diritto, and the bedrock of our society.