Israelis Protest Over Supreme Court Reform
-
hmmm where to begin
- Israel has no constitution. there is whats called "basic laws" which function as a sort of constitution (https://m.knesset.gov.il/EN/activity/documents/BasicLawsPDF/BasicLawLiberty.pdf) but its really a pseudo-constitution.
2 therfore the supreme court has some leeway in the checks and balances vis a vis the parliament-knesset (meaning the government, since the government is automaticlly a majority in the knesset)
-
until now the supreme court can determine that a law passed by knesset is "unconstitutional" by using the basic laws as a precedent.
-
the governement now want to pass a law that allows the knesset to overide by a simple majority the supreme court cancelling a law under the basic law
5 ergo-the court will now be theoretically unable to regulate the knesset's laws.
6 the idea that the government, right now run by bibi who has three corruption indictements pending, can weaken the judicial system is seen a a direct attack on the justice system and whose goal is ultimatly to find a way to exonerate bibi so he doesnt go to jail.
there are a number of other reforms, how to pick judges, the role of the attorney general, etc, but they all boil down to weakening the judiciary.
my view---i would have loved to be at the demonstration but i had a meeting with someone which i could not put off. The Israeli supreme court is a gem that must be protected and kept apolitical by all means possible. thats my two cents
Thanks. I was not aware that Israel had no constitution as such. Canada was somewhat that way until 1982 when BNA Act was repatriated from the UK and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms was appended to the document as a Preamble to the Act here in Canada.
If I were in your situation I too would be concerned and openly in opposition to legislation demoting the traditional role and ability of the Supreme Court as to act as a check and balance to government power.
-
Thanks for the information.
It's an interesting situation. Marbury v Madison basically set forth the position that the Supreme Court can decide whatever the law is.
And that position was set forth by...the Supreme Court.
AFAIK, it's never really been challenged.
-
R Renauda referenced this topic on
-
@jon-nyc Do I understand you correctly?
The Israel national flag is not the national flag?
-
Protests rock Israel as it passes curbs on some Supreme Court powers
Summary- Bill limits Supreme Court power to quash government decisions
- Nineteen arrested as protests break out across Israel
- Popular protests have spread to military
- Opposition pledges to challenge changes
Sorry this is what @bachophile returns to.
-
Yes very very depressing
We shall see.
-
Not sure what to make of this:
https://reason.com/2023/07/26/why-israelis-are-taking-to-the-streets/
On Monday, the Knesset, Israel's parliament, enacted a relatively modest law that restricts judicial power. The bill bars the Israeli Supreme Court from overturning national government decisions based on "reasonableness," a vague and widely criticized common-law doctrine.
The Israeli Supreme Court has deployed the "reasonableness" doctrine, for example, to block the appointment of ministers who were accused or convicted of crimes. The IDI also cites judicial decrees regarding day care subsidies, safety precautions in schools threatened by rocket attacks, recognition of "doctoral degrees issued by foreign universities," and construction of a mikvah (ritual bath) for women in the town of Kfar Vradim.
Daniel Friedmann, a law professor and former justice minister, agrees that the "reasonableness" test gave the Israeli Supreme Court too much discretion. "It enables the court to replace all other authorities," he told The New York Times before this week's Knesset vote. "The scope of action should be narrowed."
But the agenda of Netanyahu's allies goes far beyond such tweaks. Members of his coalition have proposed changes that would virtually eliminate judicial review, giving a bare majority the power to appoint judges and override court decisions while undermining the influence of advisers who weigh in on the question of whether a proposed law or policy is likely to pass legal muster.
Netanyahu faces corruption charges, a threat that could be eliminated by the proposed reforms, although he denies any such motivation. He also has to worry about maintaining his 64-member coalition's control of the 120-seat Knesset.
Netanyahu nevertheless has echoed President Isaac Herzog's warning that the conflict over judicial power raises the threat of "civil war." He says a bill allowing the Knesset to negate court decisions is off the table and suggests that consideration of other legislation should be delayed until November.
The prospect of a compromise that would preserve judicial review while curbing its excesses currently seems remote. But it still might be possible if Netanyahu's allies reflect on the risk that the next election could deliver the government's newly expanded powers to the opposition.
-
The opposition is about slippery slopes into a religious dictatorship. In America we're familiar with similar slippery slope arguments, for instance into fascist authoritarianism. We're all free to judge how realistic those arguments are. Or we can withhold judgment due to lack of information. Regarding the American arguments, I always considered them hysterical and nonsensical.
