4 ms·

Israel just removed their judicial branches ability to review government actions. The hose just got a lot bigger.

ecf 3y ago
The amount of taxpayer $$$ that Israel claws from the US in the name of religion was already quite sickening. Now they’re getting that money while simultaneously switching to a totalitarian government.
- bozhark 3y ago
  Switching?
smsm42 3y ago
This is not at all what happened. What actually happened is that the parliament slightly restricted the number of reasons the Supreme Court is allowed to use to overrule decisions of the government. Since Israel has no Constitution (it has some Basic Laws, but they don't cover much) the Supreme Court has been increasingly intervening into politics - including appointments, government decisions, policies, etc. - much more than, for example, US Supreme Court would ever do, and using reasoning like "it doesn't look reasonable" to overrule the actions of the government. Since, remember, there's no Constitution, this essentially gives the Supreme Court infinite power - they could override literally anything the government does, and they didn't need much grounds for it either. And, let's say, the Court also hasn't been exactly non-partisan lately either (if it reminds you some other country, then you are right, these things can happen anywhere). So, many people were very unhappy with such situation, where a largely self-perpetuating body (the Court controls a lot of appointment process too) has nearly infinite power over the elected officials. Given that one major party (or rather coalition, but let's not get into the weeds) has lost the elections, but enjoys the power in the Court, and the other has the majority in the parliament, but has their actions constantly blocked by the Court with motivations like "it doesn't look reasonable to us", the inevitable readjustment happens. It does not mean at all the Court - or any courts - lost all ability to review the decisions of the government, far from it. It just means that use of that particular tool - declaring any decision "unreasonable" and be done with it - has been restricted. Of course the side that enjoyed using that tool doesn't like it at all. But the Court still has all the power of review that it had using any other tools - including all the laws previously passed and those Basic Laws that exist. It just moved from "infinite power" to "limited power".
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > What actually happened is that the parliament slightly restricted the number of reasons the Supreme Court is allowed to use to overrule decisions of the government. This seems a bit misleading. There's a lot more to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform > The Supreme Court can declare Knesset legislation unconstitutional. The reform would permit the Knesset to override such a ruling by reintroducing the legislation and approving it with a majority of Knesset members. > Levin and the ruling government coalition have stated that the above is the first step in their judicial reform, and that additional steps are planned, including changing the appointment process of legal advisors to government ministries, such that they are appointed and dismissed by the ministers; making their legal advice a recommendation rather than binding on the ministers; and making them subordinate directly to the ministers rather than to the Justice Ministry's professional oversight. > The coalition is also advancing a number of other bills concerning Israel's judicial system and the balance of powers, including reforms to widen the authority of the Rabbinical Court, allowing them to act as arbitrators in civil matters using religious law, if both parties consent; bills limiting the ability to call for a no-confidence vote and other methods for dissolving a sitting Knesset; bills prohibiting criminal proceedings against sitting Prime Ministers; and bills permitting key public service positions to be positions of trust appointed by politicians rather than professional appointments.
  - smsm42 3y ago
    I would seriously advise against using Wikipedia as an ultimate source for politically controversial topics, especially ones concerning fresh ongoing events. That said, the two last paragraphs is not actually an objection to anything I said, it's just saying "but also they plan to do other bad things". Maybe they do, maybe they don't - it doesn't change the nature of the particular thing they passed, and that's what I was addressing and that's what the comment I was answered was alleging (it said "just removed", not "planning to remove" or "going to remove" - and that's false). As for the first paragraph (after the link), I suspect what it refers to is part of another bill, and as such it's kind of hard to discuss because these change all the time as part of inter- and intra-coalition wheeling and dealing. I did not find any reference to this provision being part of the law that actually passed, if you have any (non-Wikipedia) reference to it please provide it. On its face, it looks ridiculous - that means to nullify any Supreme Court decision the parliament has to just vote on it twice (and the majority is implied - you can not pass any bill without having majority anyway) - so there's no point to have any court at all. This exaggerated ridiculousness suggests to me something is missing - this is not how it works and even people wanting to somehow establish a dictatorship (which nobody in Israel actually wants, despite what both sides claim - they just want to bend the system towards the party they favor) does not do it by passing a law saying "anything I say twice is the truth". Why then bother with saying it twice anyway - once should be enough? It just doesn't make any sense, all politics aside, so I suspect the real bill, whatever it is, is something different. But, as I said, I haven't read it so I don't know.
appplication 3y ago
Just leaving another comment to warn that there is a lot of “don’t believe your eyes and ears” argumentation going on in the other sub threads to this comment. I’m not sure this is something you can flag comments for, but I don’t think that type of argument, regardless of how eloquently stated, is appropriate for HN.

ecf 3y ago

The amount of taxpayer $$$ that Israel claws from the US in the name of religion was already quite sickening. Now they’re getting that money while simultaneously switching to a totalitarian government.

bozhark 3y ago
Switching?

smsm42 3y ago

This is not at all what happened. What actually happened is that the parliament slightly restricted the number of reasons the Supreme Court is allowed to use to overrule decisions of the government. Since Israel has no Constitution (it has some Basic Laws, but they don't cover much) the Supreme Court has been increasingly intervening into politics - including appointments, government decisions, policies, etc. - much more than, for example, US Supreme Court would ever do, and using reasoning like "it doesn't look reasonable" to overrule the actions of the government. Since, remember, there's no Constitution, this essentially gives the Supreme Court infinite power - they could override literally anything the government does, and they didn't need much grounds for it either. And, let's say, the Court also hasn't been exactly non-partisan lately either (if it reminds you some other country, then you are right, these things can happen anywhere). So, many people were very unhappy with such situation, where a largely self-perpetuating body (the Court controls a lot of appointment process too) has nearly infinite power over the elected officials. Given that one major party (or rather coalition, but let's not get into the weeds) has lost the elections, but enjoys the power in the Court, and the other has the majority in the parliament, but has their actions constantly blocked by the Court with motivations like "it doesn't look reasonable to us", the inevitable readjustment happens. It does not mean at all the Court - or any courts - lost all ability to review the decisions of the government, far from it. It just means that use of that particular tool - declaring any decision "unreasonable" and be done with it - has been restricted. Of course the side that enjoyed using that tool doesn't like it at all. But the Court still has all the power of review that it had using any other tools - including all the laws previously passed and those Basic Laws that exist. It just moved from "infinite power" to "limited power".

ceejayoz 3y ago
> What actually happened is that the parliament slightly restricted the number of reasons the Supreme Court is allowed to use to overrule decisions of the government. This seems a bit misleading. There's a lot more to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform > The Supreme Court can declare Knesset legislation unconstitutional. The reform would permit the Knesset to override such a ruling by reintroducing the legislation and approving it with a majority of Knesset members. > Levin and the ruling government coalition have stated that the above is the first step in their judicial reform, and that additional steps are planned, including changing the appointment process of legal advisors to government ministries, such that they are appointed and dismissed by the ministers; making their legal advice a recommendation rather than binding on the ministers; and making them subordinate directly to the ministers rather than to the Justice Ministry's professional oversight. > The coalition is also advancing a number of other bills concerning Israel's judicial system and the balance of powers, including reforms to widen the authority of the Rabbinical Court, allowing them to act as arbitrators in civil matters using religious law, if both parties consent; bills limiting the ability to call for a no-confidence vote and other methods for dissolving a sitting Knesset; bills prohibiting criminal proceedings against sitting Prime Ministers; and bills permitting key public service positions to be positions of trust appointed by politicians rather than professional appointments.
- smsm42 3y ago
  I would seriously advise against using Wikipedia as an ultimate source for politically controversial topics, especially ones concerning fresh ongoing events. That said, the two last paragraphs is not actually an objection to anything I said, it's just saying "but also they plan to do other bad things". Maybe they do, maybe they don't - it doesn't change the nature of the particular thing they passed, and that's what I was addressing and that's what the comment I was answered was alleging (it said "just removed", not "planning to remove" or "going to remove" - and that's false). As for the first paragraph (after the link), I suspect what it refers to is part of another bill, and as such it's kind of hard to discuss because these change all the time as part of inter- and intra-coalition wheeling and dealing. I did not find any reference to this provision being part of the law that actually passed, if you have any (non-Wikipedia) reference to it please provide it. On its face, it looks ridiculous - that means to nullify any Supreme Court decision the parliament has to just vote on it twice (and the majority is implied - you can not pass any bill without having majority anyway) - so there's no point to have any court at all. This exaggerated ridiculousness suggests to me something is missing - this is not how it works and even people wanting to somehow establish a dictatorship (which nobody in Israel actually wants, despite what both sides claim - they just want to bend the system towards the party they favor) does not do it by passing a law saying "anything I say twice is the truth". Why then bother with saying it twice anyway - once should be enough? It just doesn't make any sense, all politics aside, so I suspect the real bill, whatever it is, is something different. But, as I said, I haven't read it so I don't know.

appplication 3y ago

Just leaving another comment to warn that there is a lot of “don’t believe your eyes and ears” argumentation going on in the other sub threads to this comment. I’m not sure this is something you can flag comments for, but I don’t think that type of argument, regardless of how eloquently stated, is appropriate for HN.