4 ms·

For folks uninformed about Israel's judicial reforms, the short of it is Israel doesn't have a constitution, resulting[0] in decades-long ambiguity about the po

by judah 3y ago

For folks uninformed about Israel's judicial reforms, the short of it is Israel doesn't have a constitution, resulting[0] in decades-long ambiguity about the powers granted to the judicial and legislative branches of government. When Israel was created anew in 1948, its Declaration of Independence implied there would be a constitution, but this was delayed as Israel was immediately invaded by several nations. Eventually when a ceasefire was reached, politicians couldn't agree on what should go into the constitution. And without a constitution, the balance of power between legislature and judicial branches was never clearly defined. It's in this backdrop the judicial reform proposal takes the stage. It reduces the power of Israel's Supreme Court by dictating what type of laws the court can and cannot strike down. It grants more power to the elected members of the Knesset, rather than unelected judges. To describe it as "not a democracy anymore" is wildly sensational and inaccurate. (And I say that despite personally opposing the reforms for other reasons.) [0]: https://allisrael.com/historical-backdrop-for-the-controversy-over-israels-judicial-reforms https://allisrael.com/historical-backdrop-for-the-controvers...

tguvot 3y ago
while i in general agree with you, this part is problematic >It's in this backdrop the judicial reform proposal takes the stage. It reduces the power of Israel's Supreme Court by dictating which laws the court can and cannot strike down. It grants more power to the elected members of the Knesset, rather than unelected judges. In Israel there is no proper separation of power. Legislative and executive are essentially same . Judical branch is the only check and balance available in Israel. Also in reality Supreme Court stroke down in last 30 years only 22 laws (or some parts of them), and mostly because they were conflicting with pre-existing laws. This doesn't show "extreme power" of Supreme Court, but stupidity of combined legislative and executive branches that write bad laws.
edanm 3y ago
To be clear, the people claiming Israel won't be a democracy anymore if these reforms pass aren't the CNN writers or outsiders - it's the Israeli people who are against these reforms. So it might be sensational and inaccurate, but that's the existing rhetoric in Israel. I do think the rhetoric is correct, btw, for sure directionally (and probably just fully correct). The prime minister is literally copying playbooks from other countries that have turned into dictatorships. Also, the only reason to make such a huge mess in order to pass these reforms is if these reforms are really important for you - and the religious right that is pushing these reforms are making it very clear why they want them.
idontwantthis 3y ago
If the prime minister leading the power grab weren’t currently under indictment for corruption you might have sounded reasonable.
LatteLazy 3y ago
Democracy includes the rule of law, it is not just "there was a vote once so everything the winner does is democratic"...
machina_ex_deus 3y ago
There's much more nuance to it. The supreme court in Israel did not intervene in laws at all until 1995 (with a single exception of a law contradicting a requirement of 61 majority). Then in 1995, in Bank hamizrachi verdict [0], the supreme court declared it has the authority to overturn regular laws according to basic laws, including basic laws which were legislated with 32-20 majority (out of 120 seats). The supreme court declared that the only thing required for a law to be constitutional is the string "basic law" in its name. (That this terrible idea took 30 years to blow up is an achievement). Over the years, the supreme court had decided to intervene in things which are the open wounds of Israeli society. These include the issue of Haredim recruitment to the army (where the supreme court had cancelled many laws that seeked a resolution, from both sides of the political aisles), issues of religion and state (the last leftist coalition had fallen as a direct result of an intervention of the supreme court with Hametz laws, leading to the resignation of Idit Silman). A bit like how the U.S. supreme court intervention into abortions has led to politization of the court, and into heavy pressure from Christians to pick "pro life" judges that eventually resulted in overturning the abortion verdict, we're seeing a similar dynamic playing out where supreme court preventing resolution of a political - religious conflict leads to politization of the court and to religious people seeking to pick judges. My personal opinion is that the supreme court should've stayed out of this mess so that we wouldn't reach this point. I don't support politicization of the court but the court also bears a responsibility. Politicians should resist the temptation intervene with the court, and the court should resist the temptation to intervene in politics. And this is especially true in a country where the supreme court wasn't granted its authority from any constitution, but from its own verdicts. [0] https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%A7_%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%A7_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%97%D7%99 https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%A7_%D7%93%D7... (you'll need Google translate)
- lesuorac 3y ago
  > And this is especially true in a country where the supreme court wasn't granted its authority from any constitution, but from its own verdicts. Is that a reference back to the US since the US Constitution doesn't actually allow for the Supreme Court to review laws for consitutionability? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_...
eli_gottlieb 3y ago
>To describe it as "not a democracy anymore" is wildly sensational and inaccurate. (And I say that despite personally opposing the reforms for other reasons.) On a technical level it's wildly sensational and inaccurate. On a political level it's what a lot of the supporters of the judicial reform bills have been saying.

by judah 3y ago

tguvot 3y ago

while i in general agree with you, this part is problematic >It's in this backdrop the judicial reform proposal takes the stage. It reduces the power of Israel's Supreme Court by dictating which laws the court can and cannot strike down. It grants more power to the elected members of the Knesset, rather than unelected judges. In Israel there is no proper separation of power. Legislative and executive are essentially same . Judical branch is the only check and balance available in Israel. Also in reality Supreme Court stroke down in last 30 years only 22 laws (or some parts of them), and mostly because they were conflicting with pre-existing laws. This doesn't show "extreme power" of Supreme Court, but stupidity of combined legislative and executive branches that write bad laws.

edanm 3y ago

To be clear, the people claiming Israel won't be a democracy anymore if these reforms pass aren't the CNN writers or outsiders - it's the Israeli people who are against these reforms. So it might be sensational and inaccurate, but that's the existing rhetoric in Israel. I do think the rhetoric is correct, btw, for sure directionally (and probably just fully correct). The prime minister is literally copying playbooks from other countries that have turned into dictatorships. Also, the only reason to make such a huge mess in order to pass these reforms is if these reforms are really important for you - and the religious right that is pushing these reforms are making it very clear why they want them.

idontwantthis 3y ago

If the prime minister leading the power grab weren’t currently under indictment for corruption you might have sounded reasonable.

LatteLazy 3y ago

Democracy includes the rule of law, it is not just "there was a vote once so everything the winner does is democratic"...

machina_ex_deus 3y ago

There's much more nuance to it. The supreme court in Israel did not intervene in laws at all until 1995 (with a single exception of a law contradicting a requirement of 61 majority). Then in 1995, in Bank hamizrachi verdict [0], the supreme court declared it has the authority to overturn regular laws according to basic laws, including basic laws which were legislated with 32-20 majority (out of 120 seats). The supreme court declared that the only thing required for a law to be constitutional is the string "basic law" in its name. (That this terrible idea took 30 years to blow up is an achievement). Over the years, the supreme court had decided to intervene in things which are the open wounds of Israeli society. These include the issue of Haredim recruitment to the army (where the supreme court had cancelled many laws that seeked a resolution, from both sides of the political aisles), issues of religion and state (the last leftist coalition had fallen as a direct result of an intervention of the supreme court with Hametz laws, leading to the resignation of Idit Silman). A bit like how the U.S. supreme court intervention into abortions has led to politization of the court, and into heavy pressure from Christians to pick "pro life" judges that eventually resulted in overturning the abortion verdict, we're seeing a similar dynamic playing out where supreme court preventing resolution of a political - religious conflict leads to politization of the court and to religious people seeking to pick judges. My personal opinion is that the supreme court should've stayed out of this mess so that we wouldn't reach this point. I don't support politicization of the court but the court also bears a responsibility. Politicians should resist the temptation intervene with the court, and the court should resist the temptation to intervene in politics. And this is especially true in a country where the supreme court wasn't granted its authority from any constitution, but from its own verdicts. [0] https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%A7_%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%A7_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%97%D7%99 https://he.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%A7_%D7%93%D7... (you'll need Google translate)

lesuorac 3y ago
> And this is especially true in a country where the supreme court wasn't granted its authority from any constitution, but from its own verdicts. Is that a reference back to the US since the US Constitution doesn't actually allow for the Supreme Court to review laws for consitutionability? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_...

eli_gottlieb 3y ago

>To describe it as "not a democracy anymore" is wildly sensational and inaccurate. (And I say that despite personally opposing the reforms for other reasons.) On a technical level it's wildly sensational and inaccurate. On a political level it's what a lot of the supporters of the judicial reform bills have been saying.