The principle of publicity has led to a whole genre of legal TV series. A trial is supposed to be the best show in town, and watching it should lead to a sense of trust and respect for the system. It is highly doubtful whether the broadcast from the nightly hearing by the High Court judges following Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein's refusal to fulfill the order issued for the plenary session and the election of a new chairman has led to this result. In my opinion, the discussion video should become a mandatory material in citizenship classes. Much about the High Court's course of action, especially when it comes to occupying a new governing territory.

Let’s start with diversity, or rather its absence. In the entire large room, where five High Court judges and about ten lawyers sat, not one person could be found to remind informed judges of basic separation of powers. There was no court in any democratic state, and there was complete unanimity in the court as to whether this step was legitimate, and perhaps even necessary, contrary to the opinions of the general public, and even to the general public.

We will continue with the dishonesty that accompanies the whole course of the discussion. A significant curb on the judiciary is its being activated and not proactive. We have often heard that the court does not choose the cases before it and the petitions and requests brought before it, so there is no fear of judicial imperialism.

However, it can be seen that the judges, during the hearing, almost dictate to the parties the requests they will be asked and determine the boundaries of the discourse. Any such statement is accompanied by righteous indignation by the judges, which, of course, they do not tell the parties what to do, but anyone who deviates from the narrowest boundaries presented by the judges as legitimate, reprimanded, and sometimes very harshly.

After engaging in the form, you can of course engage with the content. It was clear to everyone what the law says. The exclusive power to convene the plenum is in the hands of the Speaker of the Knesset, and he does not intend to implement the High Court ruling. For an hour and a half, the court and its aides, the lawyers, of whom none of course represented the Knesset or Likud faction, dedicated a solution that contradicted the Basic Law: the Knesset and the bylaws, and trampled on the legislature's intent.

And the sad thing is that the clear and simple rules of procedure have not been discussed at all. The Knesset determined and decided with calm and discretion that only consensus and political agreement from the wall could extract the Knesset from certain crises. A special clause in the articles of association states that the Knesset will not discuss any matter in the form of a discussion that goes beyond the provisions of the by-laws, but by a unanimous decision of the Knesset committee. The purpose of this section is to calm the spirits and cooperation. A decision is required in the trial; In the political field moderation and compromise are a desirable and even legitimate goal.

However, since it was clear to everyone that the formulation of the political agreement would take time and require concessions, the High Court chose to mobilize for the benefit of a political party and shred the bylaws.

Making rules like her like making sausages - not a very aesthetic look. Thanks to the technical glitch that exposed the High Court's nightly debate, we discovered that the trampling of laws is not as well-photographed.

Adv. Simcha Rothman is the legal counsel for the Movement for Governments, and author of the book "High Court Party"