3 ms·
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 requir
by 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_...