According to reports, as part of the coalition negotiations between the Likud and the Blue and White, legislation is being debated that states that even a person who is pending against him can continue to serve as minister or as deputy prime minister. This is another attempt to abolish Deri Panhasci's rule, and to remove the stone thrown by the High Court judges from the coalition well. But the truth is that any attempt to amend the law punctually will not succeed. The Knesset already amended the Basic Law in 2001 and explicitly stated that criminal proceedings Only the minister's term expires when he is convicted in court of an offense with which she is infamous.

High Court judges have shown us last week that a law, and even an explicit Basic Law, does not constitute a barrier to their action. The 2001 amendment also did not particularly excite them. They went on to discuss the petitions filed against them by a ministerial office against which an indictment was filed. It never happened that the court ordered the prime minister to dismiss a minister, but the Supreme Court's fear that most of the ministers would voluntarily resign. Minister Haim Katz did so recently, though he stated in the resignation letter that he does so, although he does not have to do so legally. Benjamin Netanyahu also resigned from the ministerial positions he played.

In order to understand how it happened that despite an explicit Basic Law, the High Court continues to rule, it is important to understand that in fact, Deri-Pahanasi's law includes two different provisions. Until those Deri and Pahanasi rulings in the 1990s, it was clear that the prime minister's reasonableness and discretion in appointing ministers and dismissing them They are a political question and as long as there is no law prohibiting a person from being appointed a minister, the court is not allowed to deal with the matter.

The first deranged rule is the very novelty that the prime minister's discretion can stand before the High Court judges. The other panelist stated that an indictment filed against a minister automatically makes his appointment or resumption of office unreasonable. If the minister is not fired or resigns, the High Court will intervene and do so himself.

When the Basic Law was amended in 2001, the Knesset decided it was quite likely that a minister would continue to serve until his conviction, which would have abolished the second ruling. The condition, however, is that the High Court will bow its head in the face of the legislature's clear instructions. Of course, this did not happen, and the High Court reiterated "competence for the individual and discretion." The fact that the legislature bothered to point out that a qualified person sings even when an indictment hovers over his head does not mean that the High Court judges will accept the discretion of the prime minister who appointed him.

The powers of the elected officials and their judgments are repeatedly under the sharp teeth of the High Court judges. Pointless solutions will not succeed. The only way is to close the hole from which the rodents emerge. The Basic Law: Judgment must be amended and it is determined that the discretion of elected officials is independent. What the High Court judges consider reasonable.

The State of Israel has a court that does not deal with politics and does not interfere with senior government and Knesset appointments. This is the only way to regain the lost confidence in the justice system.

Attorney Simcha Rothman is the legal counsel for the Movement for Governance and the author of the book "High Court Party"