3 ms·

I'm not Israeli, don't know the full context, but the proposed reform seems like common sense? Why should unelected judges be able to overrule government decis

I'm not Israeli, don't know the full context, but the proposed reform seems like common sense? Why should unelected judges be able to overrule government decisions merely because they feel they are "unreasonable", with no reference to an overriding law? Such a procedure cannot be compatible with democracy. I don't often find myself in agreement with Netanyahu, but for once I think he has the right of it.

catlover76 3y ago
[dead]
ostenning 3y ago
> The justices, led by departing Chief Justice Esther Hayut, argued that the standard of reasonableness was a key tool for judges to protect against arbitrary government overreach, particularly in Israel, which lacks a formal constitution. Without the underlying framework of protections to protect democracy against populism or malignant leadership the democracy would devolve. There needs to be protections in so that the government does not erode fundamental structures. The language that Netanyahu uses in response to this ruling, in my opinion, is quite telling.
Isamu 3y ago
Reasonableness is frequently cited in judgments. Judges, especially at a high level, don’t just shoot from the hip. They cite the applicable laws, and pose the question: given the executive argues that what they did was permissible under these laws. Is that a reasonable interpretation or are they stretching beyond the limits of their power?
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  According to Wikipedia's summary, the concept of "reasonablness" as applied by Israel judges is much broader/vaguer than merely interpretation of laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform#Abolition_of_%22unreasonableness%22_grounds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform#A...
wahern 3y ago
Relative to every other nation, including other democracies, the Supreme Court of Israel does indeed have exceptionally strong powers to strike down government laws and actions, powers that it adopted itself at the behest of some very strong-minded judges several decades ago. OTOH, AFAIU, the current reform efforts are strategically designed to severely cripple the court in a way that threatens its ability to provide any meaningful check against the government, calling into question whether Israel could even be notionally considered a liberal democracy. Israel was established as a religious state with very little in the way of meaningful checks & balances (de jure or normative) intended to protect minorities (or the majority from itself). The powers the court adopted came at a time when the excesses and corruption of the government spawned a liberal reform effort that for better or worse came to fruition largely through judicial activism and not electorally-based constitutional reform. Many moderate jurists, at least from what I've read, are of the opinion that a restraining of the court's powers is probably necessary, at least to the extent the goal is achieving a balance of powers closer to those in other liberal democracies. But that probably can't happen through the regular parliamentary process because the current powers are a response to excesses of parliament, and there's no reason to believe the parliamentary process can be trusted any more than it could 30+ years ago. Quite the contrary, the evidence for strong checks against parliament has only become more clear. (Again, presuming the goal is maintaining a liberal democracy, modulo what's minimally required to maintain Israel as a religious state.) Unfortunately, even when they're inclined to do it, courts find it difficult to relinquish powers assumed by themselves as the very act of doing so threatens their legitimacy and viability as a strong check against other organs of government. This is why liberal democracy is often best served by conservative courts, because when a conservative court does adopt powers or uses its existing powers to obstruct highly popular government actions, it comes across as far more legitimate. Maintaining that legitimacy across several iterations of this process requires very measured and restrained power grabs. The earlier reform effort probably did a disservice to Israeli democracy by grabbing too much power. I suspect proper, stable reform would need to come neither from parliament nor the courts. But I'm not familiar enough with Israeli politics to know what the alternatives might be. Part of the dilemma is that the Israeli political system seems to lack such alternatives, both in law and normatively.
- chkaloon 3y ago

catlover76 3y ago

[dead]

ostenning 3y ago

> The justices, led by departing Chief Justice Esther Hayut, argued that the standard of reasonableness was a key tool for judges to protect against arbitrary government overreach, particularly in Israel, which lacks a formal constitution. Without the underlying framework of protections to protect democracy against populism or malignant leadership the democracy would devolve. There needs to be protections in so that the government does not erode fundamental structures. The language that Netanyahu uses in response to this ruling, in my opinion, is quite telling.

Isamu 3y ago

Reasonableness is frequently cited in judgments. Judges, especially at a high level, don’t just shoot from the hip. They cite the applicable laws, and pose the question: given the executive argues that what they did was permissible under these laws. Is that a reasonable interpretation or are they stretching beyond the limits of their power?

Georgelemental 3y ago
According to Wikipedia's summary, the concept of "reasonablness" as applied by Israel judges is much broader/vaguer than merely interpretation of laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform#Abolition_of_%22unreasonableness%22_grounds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform#A...

wahern 3y ago

Relative to every other nation, including other democracies, the Supreme Court of Israel does indeed have exceptionally strong powers to strike down government laws and actions, powers that it adopted itself at the behest of some very strong-minded judges several decades ago. OTOH, AFAIU, the current reform efforts are strategically designed to severely cripple the court in a way that threatens its ability to provide any meaningful check against the government, calling into question whether Israel could even be notionally considered a liberal democracy. Israel was established as a religious state with very little in the way of meaningful checks & balances (de jure or normative) intended to protect minorities (or the majority from itself). The powers the court adopted came at a time when the excesses and corruption of the government spawned a liberal reform effort that for better or worse came to fruition largely through judicial activism and not electorally-based constitutional reform. Many moderate jurists, at least from what I've read, are of the opinion that a restraining of the court's powers is probably necessary, at least to the extent the goal is achieving a balance of powers closer to those in other liberal democracies. But that probably can't happen through the regular parliamentary process because the current powers are a response to excesses of parliament, and there's no reason to believe the parliamentary process can be trusted any more than it could 30+ years ago. Quite the contrary, the evidence for strong checks against parliament has only become more clear. (Again, presuming the goal is maintaining a liberal democracy, modulo what's minimally required to maintain Israel as a religious state.) Unfortunately, even when they're inclined to do it, courts find it difficult to relinquish powers assumed by themselves as the very act of doing so threatens their legitimacy and viability as a strong check against other organs of government. This is why liberal democracy is often best served by conservative courts, because when a conservative court does adopt powers or uses its existing powers to obstruct highly popular government actions, it comes across as far more legitimate. Maintaining that legitimacy across several iterations of this process requires very measured and restrained power grabs. The earlier reform effort probably did a disservice to Israeli democracy by grabbing too much power. I suspect proper, stable reform would need to come neither from parliament nor the courts. But I'm not familiar enough with Israeli politics to know what the alternatives might be. Part of the dilemma is that the Israeli political system seems to lack such alternatives, both in law and normatively.

chkaloon 3y ago