4 ms·

I would seriously advise against using Wikipedia as an ultimate source for politically controversial topics, especially ones concerning fresh ongoing events. T

by 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.

ceejayoz 3y ago
It appears to be referencing this: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-02-22/ty-article/.premium/knesset-advances-bill-barring-top-court-from-intervening-in-ministerial-appointments/00000186-78c1-db94-a9ae-7bc3425c0000 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-02-22/ty-article/.p... > The Knesset advanced a slew of proposals through preliminary readings on Wednesday – most notably the bill to enshrine the judicial override clause, which would permit the Knesset to override Supreme Court decisions by a very slim majority of 61 votes in the 120-seat parliament, effectively revoking its power to strike down unconstitutional laws. > The law, which passed a preliminary vote, also includes a provision requiring all 15 Supreme Court justices to unanimously support any move to strike down unconstitutional laws, a proposal which critics charge would dramatically reduce the High Court’s ability to check the legislature while also discouraging judges from issuing dissenting opinions. Even after the 15-member court unanimously strikes down a law, the bill allows the Knesset to override the move with a simple majority of 61 votes out of the 120-seat parliament.
- smsm42 3y ago
  Thanks for the link. This is certainly a different bill, and not the one that has been recently passed. As such, it indeed looks quite ridiculous and reaching too far and basically makes Supreme Court completely powerless - because the government controls 61 votes by default, otherwise it falls. But it is not passed yet. If it does pass, then there's a reason to worry that the judicial review has been seriously impacted. But it didn't happen so far. And it looks like it won't ever: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-diplomacy/article-748193 https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-diplomacy/art... As such, I suspect that it was just a bargaining move by Netanyahu to introduce something which clearly is going too far, with the full intent to drop it as soon as things get really going, to show he's reasonable and compromising. Maybe so, maybe he did intend to pass it if he can - in any case, I don't think that will happen anymore.
  - skissane 3y ago
    > Thanks for the link. This is certainly a different bill, and not the one that has been recently passed. As such, it indeed looks quite ridiculous and reaching too far and basically makes Supreme Court completely powerless - because the government controls 61 votes by default, otherwise it falls Even supposing that law passes, how would it make Israel any different from the UK or New Zealand, in both of which almost any decision of the Supreme Court can be overturned with mere ordinary legislation. [0] I don’t understand this heated rhetoric claiming it is the “death of Israeli democracy”-to be consistent, people who claim that would also have to say that the UK and New Zealand are not democracies [0] New Zealand requires a referendum for certain changes to election law, so there are limits to the ability of Parliament to overturn court decisions in that specific area
    - justin66 3y ago
      > I don’t understand this heated rhetoric claiming it is the “death of Israeli democracy”-to be consistent, people who claim that would also have to say that the UK and New Zealand are not democracies I'm not trying to be harsh but it's weird how frequently this (badly offtopic) subthread has been speculative, when there are plenty of Israeli newspapers wherein the reasons for the rift in Israel are discussed to the nth degree... in English... by people who know what they're talking about.

by smsm42 3y ago

ceejayoz 3y ago

It appears to be referencing this: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-02-22/ty-article/.premium/knesset-advances-bill-barring-top-court-from-intervening-in-ministerial-appointments/00000186-78c1-db94-a9ae-7bc3425c0000 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-02-22/ty-article/.p... > The Knesset advanced a slew of proposals through preliminary readings on Wednesday – most notably the bill to enshrine the judicial override clause, which would permit the Knesset to override Supreme Court decisions by a very slim majority of 61 votes in the 120-seat parliament, effectively revoking its power to strike down unconstitutional laws. > The law, which passed a preliminary vote, also includes a provision requiring all 15 Supreme Court justices to unanimously support any move to strike down unconstitutional laws, a proposal which critics charge would dramatically reduce the High Court’s ability to check the legislature while also discouraging judges from issuing dissenting opinions. Even after the 15-member court unanimously strikes down a law, the bill allows the Knesset to override the move with a simple majority of 61 votes out of the 120-seat parliament.

smsm42 3y ago
Thanks for the link. This is certainly a different bill, and not the one that has been recently passed. As such, it indeed looks quite ridiculous and reaching too far and basically makes Supreme Court completely powerless - because the government controls 61 votes by default, otherwise it falls. But it is not passed yet. If it does pass, then there's a reason to worry that the judicial review has been seriously impacted. But it didn't happen so far. And it looks like it won't ever: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-diplomacy/article-748193 https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-diplomacy/art... As such, I suspect that it was just a bargaining move by Netanyahu to introduce something which clearly is going too far, with the full intent to drop it as soon as things get really going, to show he's reasonable and compromising. Maybe so, maybe he did intend to pass it if he can - in any case, I don't think that will happen anymore.
- skissane 3y ago
  > Thanks for the link. This is certainly a different bill, and not the one that has been recently passed. As such, it indeed looks quite ridiculous and reaching too far and basically makes Supreme Court completely powerless - because the government controls 61 votes by default, otherwise it falls Even supposing that law passes, how would it make Israel any different from the UK or New Zealand, in both of which almost any decision of the Supreme Court can be overturned with mere ordinary legislation. [0] I don’t understand this heated rhetoric claiming it is the “death of Israeli democracy”-to be consistent, people who claim that would also have to say that the UK and New Zealand are not democracies [0] New Zealand requires a referendum for certain changes to election law, so there are limits to the ability of Parliament to overturn court decisions in that specific area
  - justin66 3y ago
    > I don’t understand this heated rhetoric claiming it is the “death of Israeli democracy”-to be consistent, people who claim that would also have to say that the UK and New Zealand are not democracies I'm not trying to be harsh but it's weird how frequently this (badly offtopic) subthread has been speculative, when there are plenty of Israeli newspapers wherein the reasons for the rift in Israel are discussed to the nth degree... in English... by people who know what they're talking about.