A major point of contention that arose in the coalition negotiations between Likud and Blue is the question of senior appointees in the judiciary, especially the selection of new judges to the Supreme Court. In the next four years, at least five judges are expected to retire at the age of 70. This is one-third of the panel of judges serving today. In fact, this number is not definitive, since in recent years we have witnessed the phenomenon of voluntary and premature judicial retirement. If a coalition is formed in the Judiciary Committee, which gives the top justices in blue and white clear control over future appointments, scheduled retirement for ideological reasons is a reasonable possibility. In the US, top judges usually schedule their retirement in a way that impacts their replacement identity: conservative judges retire during a Republican and vice presidential term.

Therefore, the question of appointments to supreme during the unity government is critical. These appointments will shape the image of the supreme, who in all opinions is an institution of enormous public power. The Likud requested that the selection of candidates be made by consensus. Blue and white reject this requirement on the grounds that it is illegal and will even politicize the selection procedures.

Admittedly, the law of the court states that a member of the selection committee will vote at its discretion and will not be bound by the decisions of the body that sent it. This provision was enacted due to the fact that the Supreme Judges would hold internal hearings on candidates, and the three judges on the committee voted as a positive or negative bloc. The provision of the law brought to an end this practice of internal meetings. But conversations in the corridors and the judges' offices continue, and the vote of the Supreme Judges as a bloc for top candidates continues. Moreover, as has become known in recent years, the president "in the committee of two" is assisted in formulating her position on judicial candidates in the district court. What is good for Eze is also good for Goose. So there is no reason for the Justice Minister to consult with the prime minister or other Likud ministers. This consultation should be done with open heart and soul.

Of course, it would have been better for the Supreme Court to have a policy of judicial restraint and to distance itself from the political frenzy. So did the late President Landau, and so do scholars like Gavison, Friedman and Sapir. And that might be the reason why some of these scholars refrained from supreme. Given the high political profile of the Supreme Court, and given the ideological divide that exists between activist judges and conservative judges, appointing widespread judges is the time needed to create a balanced composition, without a balanced composition, we will continue to see a right-wing demand for the change of supreme authority, change of composition, and change of nomination procedures. That's how it happens today in the US, due to some who And directed controversial Trump, democratic politicians demanding dismissal of presiding judges and change the composition of the upper.

So how can we save our Supreme Court from this bleak future? I propose that the Likud and White Blue put together a list of judges. This list will be formulated openly and transparently and will be a kind of public hearing. This will contribute to democratic culture and remove the fear of hijackers and political deals in the basements of the committee. To select judges.

Dr. Shuki Segev is Senior Lecturer in Law School, Netanya Academic College, Constitutional Law Specialist, and Philosophy of Judgment