2023-12-30 01:40:18
Leaks regarding the Supreme Court’s intention to repeal a law that weakens the judiciary are causing controversy in Israel
After sources in the right-wing government coalition leaked information regarding a decision that the Israeli Supreme Court intends to issue, including accepting petitions submitted once morest amending the Basic Law; Judiciary” regarding “limiting the pretext of reasonableness,” and issuing a decision to abolish the law, which is considered the basis on which the Netanyahu government built its plan to “weaken the judiciary.” A political shock occurred in the arena, and several parties began to warn of terrorist attacks on judges in order for them to back down.
The leaks appeared on Wednesday-Thursday night, via Channel 12, and contained excerpts from the draft ruling prepared by the Supreme Court judges. Although the judiciary was quick to say that “the writing of the ruling has not yet been completed,” and expressed its dissatisfaction with the leaks, which it “sees as dangerous and irresponsible,” it did not deny the essence of the leaks. This caused a shock in the political arena and incitement once morest the court, amounting to a threat.
On the one hand, the opposition was angered by the leak, and the “Movement for Quality Governance,” which is the main petitioner in the petitions submitted once morest “limiting the pretext of reasonableness,” requested the government’s judicial advisor to “immediately open a criminal investigation into the leak of the draft ruling, and investigate Threats directed once morest the President of the Supreme Court, Judge Esther Hayut.
Head of the Israeli Labor Party, Merav Michaeli (Archyde.com)
The head of the Labor Party, Merav Michaeli, said that the aim of the leak was to threaten and intimidate judges into retracting their support for repealing the law.
On the other hand, the leak sparked the anger of the government and its spokespersons over the content of the decision, “which indicates that the Supreme Court is alienated from the people and wants to distract them from the enemy in the war, and this is the ugliest characteristic of the lack of national responsibility among the majority of judges,” according to a statement by the head of the Constitution, Law and Judiciary Committee in Knesset member, Simcha Rotman, one of the architects of the plan to weaken the judiciary and the initiators of the law.
Rotman called on the Supreme Court justices to “return to their senses and embrace the spirit of unity and responsibility that pulsates in all sectors of the public ( once morest the backdrop of war), and avoid creating unnecessary divisions and disagreements among people.”
Netanyahu speaks with Justice Minister Yariv Levin during the vote on judicial system reform laws in the Knesset (EPA)
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich also attacked the Supreme Court’s approach, saying: “At a time when hundreds of thousands of soldiers are now sacrificing their lives on all fronts, and nearly two million citizens are afraid of a knock on their door (to be informed of the killing of their relatives fighting in Gaza), There are those who insist on taking us back to October 6.”
Representative Almog Cohen, from the “Otzma Yehudit” party led by Itamar Ben Gvir, considered the court’s decision “an invitation to the outbreak of civil war.”
A previous demonstration in front of the house of the Israeli Minister of Justice before clashing with the police (protest campaign)
The channel revealed, in its report, that the court will issue its decision regarding the abolition of the reasonableness law, with 8 judges supporting the decision, and 7 opposing, that is, with a majority of only one judge, noting that the Supreme Court met with its entire panel of 15 judges for the first time in the history of Israel, in September (September). ) past, to consider appeals once morest the “limitation of reasonableness” law.
Israeli Supreme Court Chief Justice Esther Hayut on September 28, 2023 (Archyde.com)
Although the majority was achieved to cancel the amendment related to the law, there is talk of a preliminary draft of the judges’ decisions, which are likely to be subject to further changes, as part of Judge Hayut’s attempt to obtain a larger majority.
Among the possible changes is refraining from repealing the law and returning it to the Knesset. According to the report, Judge Noam Solberg is trying to convince the divided judges of this option.
Returning the law to the Knesset means freezing it. The Knesset will have to muster an appropriate majority to amend the Basic Law and legislate it once more, something that may be impossible for the government to do in light of the disagreements that have afflicted it once morest the backdrop of the war on Gaza.
Netanyahu casts his vote during the vote to elect the Judicial Appointment Committee in the Knesset, June (Archyde.com)
It is worth noting that the draft “limiting reasonableness” law is one of 8 judicial amendments that the current government announced its intention to approve in parliament, as part of its coup plan to change the governance system and limit the powers of the Supreme Court. This clashed with strong opposition from broad sectors of Israeli society, expressed in widespread protests and massive demonstrations demanding the overthrow of the government.
The government says that the draft laws that come within its judicial plan would balance the powers of the executive and judicial branches, while the opposition believes that the government’s plan will undermine Israel’s “democratic” identity and turn it into a “dictatorship state.”
The “Limiting the Pretext of Unreasonableness” law is an amendment to the “Basic Law… of the Judiciary,” and would prevent Israeli courts, including the Supreme Court, from applying what is known as the “reasonableness standard” to decisions made by elected officials. Under current law, the Supreme Court has the right to annul the decisions of elected officials, if it considers them “unreasonable”, such as appointing unqualified officials to senior positions, and to protect the rights of citizens once morest arbitrary decisions of the government and state authorities, within the framework of tools and mechanisms of checks and balances between the authorities.
Demonstrators clash with Israeli security forces in Tel Aviv, last March, to protest a law to reform the judiciary (AFP)
Channel 12 chose to highlight the allegations made by the judges who opposed judicial intervention to repeal the law, especially those that focused on the special status of the “Basic Laws” that are supposed to form the basis for a “future constitution” for the State of Israel. The channel also described the repeal of the law “limiting the pretext of reasonableness” as a “second coup” for the Israeli judicial system. According to the report, outgoing Supreme Court President Hayut wrote in her decision that “the Basic Law; The judiciary represents a major deviation from the constitution being prepared, and therefore it had to be approved by broad consensus, and not by a narrow coalition majority.”
The channel claimed that there was a state of dissatisfaction among the “Supreme” judges over Hayut, claiming that it “led them to rush to issue rulings.”
1703903711
#paying #heavy #price #Gaza #war