The recordings revealed by Nathaniel Darshan in the IDF waves, in which the Vice President and former Chairman of the Election Commission, Justice Hanan Meltzer, warmly compliments Attorney Shachar Ben Meir and finds that, in fact, he has "petitioned" from him, should be disturbed.

Those who know the practice in the Supreme Court were not surprised. There are public petitioners who will be awarded an expense ruling in case their petition is accepted, and sometimes even when their petition is denied. "Petitioning" is also a common practice. Only recently, in a petition against the imposition of the role of the government on Benjamin Netanyahu, a petition devoid of any legal basis, has the judgment been signed with the words "any time and time for any object". The petitioners, who filed a petition which, in the opinion of the justices, were also premature and theoretical, were not charged with expenses, and the clue is clear. The judges explicitly ordered the following petition so that they could interfere with the election results.

It is also no secret that Advocate Ben Meir is one of the active jurists, and that the symbiosis between him and the judicial activism of the High Court is highly developed. This is a serial petitioner, who initiated numerous countless proceedings himself. Most of the petitions are rejected or deleted outright, and if the court imposes on him and his like to pay the real expenses of the petitions, the amounts would accrue to millions of shekels a year. The State of Israel is subsidizing the valuable hobby of Attorney Ben Meir, with the active encouragement of Supreme Judges, Who want to produce judicial legislation on various issues.

Public dialogue between attorney Shahar Ben Meir and Judge Meltzer only revealed this bleak reality to the public. Of course, such a public connection between an incumbent judge and a lawyer frequently comes up, raising questions from the ethics field. How would an attorney who would have to appear before Ben Meir? Judge Meltzer, knowing that the two are loyal partners, and that they have a well-developed relationship?

The Movement for Governments and Democracy has filed a complaint with the Ombudsman for the judges to have the uncovered conduct examined by him, but the initial response by Judge Meltzer himself and the court administration indicates that they do not see any problem with such conduct. This is a very worrying message, hurting public confidence in the entire legal system.

But the ethical problems, with all due respect, are the marginal story. In his article "The Essence of Judicial Activism," retired Supreme Court President Aharon Barak clarified judicial legislation is legitimate because "it always comes as a by-product of deciding conflict, not as an activity on its feet." It is that the court "raped" to produce norms and change the legal situation in the State of Israel, because of the petitions brought before him.

This is a blatant lie, since the Supreme Court of Israel, led by Shamgar and Barak, breached all restrictions on standing and judgments, and allowed every petitioner to raise any issue in the world. Nobody "forced" the court to act that way except the imperialist will of His judges express a position on every issue and impose their values.

But the public image was, as Barak wrote, that the Supreme Court is a passive player, responding to challenges thrown at him. "In no dispute, the Supreme Court cannot act either," Barak wrote in the same article. Justice Meltzer's handbook seems to indicate that in a non-conflict, Attorney Ben Meir should be invited to the court to direct the court to neutralize the Knesset and activist judicial legislation.

Why should we, as citizens, go to the polls and elect Knesset members, while the legislative arrangements in the State of Israel are generally determined by a secret handshake between Attorney Ben Meir and Judge Meltzer?

Thinkers of the separation of powers have made it clear that freedom will not exist if judicial authority is not separated from the legislation. Ordering petitions by the court, and setting norms on the basis of those invited petitions, is a serious threat to the separation of authorities and Israeli democracy. This practice must be stopped.

Adv. Simcha Rutman is the Attorney General of the Movement for Governments, and author of "The High Court Party - How the Attorneys Conquered the Government in Israel" Serial to a Supreme Judge?