Abby Nissenkorn's appointment as Minister of Justice marks the end of a period. Except for a year and a half under Tzipi Livni, for 14 years there have been five law ministers with a conservative agenda: Ramon, Friedman, Trustee, Shaked and Ohana. In one way or another, they tried to lead a conservative anti-conservative revolution to the justification and activism revolution of Aharon Barak's midrash. A controlled examination of the move requires acknowledging that the counter-revolution has failed. The examples are many, and I will settle for some of the latter: the Edelstein affair, the repeal of the Deposit Law, the handling of the Netanyahu disqualification and the disqualification of Regev's incentive to cultural institutions in Judea and Samaria. When failing, it is important to understand why. 

First, there is no clear political decision on the justice system. Only in 2015 did a right-wing majority formulate a deep law reform, but most of it did not come to legislation that would set high limits for the High Court mainly because of defectors and rebels. Second, for a constitutional revolution, a majority of conservative judges and a conservative president need to. Currently there are five conservative judges out of 15. Admittedly, the High Court judges are randomized, but in important and sensitive petitions - those from which revolutions are made - the President holds the authority to order the veteran or expanded composition, in which conservatives are a persecuted minority. The president's role is of critical importance for other reasons, but suffice it to note that both Earl Warren in the United States and Aaron Barak in Israel who have led constitutional revolutions in their own country did so while holding the helm. 

Third, some of the conservative judges, to whom the right hung hope, such as Grunis, Naur, Handel and Danziger, disappointed and wandered to the center and even left. This is a familiar phenomenon known as the "Greenhouse Effect," named after Linda Greenhouse, who covered the US Supreme for the New York Times: Soft conservatives wander to the left due to media elite pressure. 

Fourth, the activist judges at the top vetoed and prevented the appointment of declared conservative jurists from the field of constitutional law, such as Gavison and Sapphire. This was the decisive step in curbing the counter-revolution, as it left the constitutional field in which the battle for the values ​​of the State of Israel broke out in the minds of activist constitutional experts: Fogelman, Mazuz, Barak-Erez and Wazer. 

With the Nissenkorn appointment, the lines should be maintained and constitutional status quo maintained. This means that "Deal" should be preferred to appointing a conservative judge an ideologue with constitutional expertise, rather than "Deal" to appoint a moderate conservative judge from private law (and all private law experts will be forgiven). From the moderates there will be no revolution against a conservative.

Elections will come sooner or later, as the government is unstable despite its size, and high court rulings will contribute. Elections must be decided and learned from U.S. Senate Republicans, who run the "nuclear option" after the 2016 election - changing the way in which the US supremacy is due to Democrats' refusal to appoint a judge conservative. with subtitles: we must strive to change the composition of the Judicial Appointments Committee to gain a majority conservative Supreme Court and the president of a conservative. Judicial Selection Committee was not given to us properly to Moses at Sinai, and in light of what was discovered in the past two years is far from sacred. 

Dr. Shuki Segev is a senior lecturer in Law School, Netanya Academic College, and a friend Advisory Committee of the Israeli Forum for Law and Freedom