It is right to say that even during an emergency, judicial review of the actions of other government agencies is required. But in an emergency, the Legislature is also required to review the judiciary and examination of legislative amendments is required. Medical stresses, security or political, sometimes justify taking strong steps. But it is precisely the urgent measures that are required by these authorities to keep them out of their powers.

An extreme political upheaval last week led to two rulings that greatly expanded the power of the judiciary at the expense of the legislature. In the near future, there will also be petitions demanding that Benjamin Netanyahu not serve as prime minister. Next month, the High Court is expected to hear about the Basic Law: The Nationality, in which judges will decide whether to produce a second and final constitutional revolution. Judiciary.

Last Monday, the High Court made it clear that the Knesset's administration was in jeopardy, thus erasing the separation fences between government authorities. The judges exchanged the Speaker's discretion with their own judgment as to the timing of the vote on the election of a new Knesset chairman, within the limited time frame left by the rules for the outgoing chair's consideration. The High Court did not have grounds for interfering with Edelstein's authority to set a time for voting. But the judges decided that their judgment of the time was better than the chairman's discretion and the resolution of days and hours. In doing so, the High Court held that there were no limits to its jurisdiction - nor the principle of separation of powers.

Last Wednesday, the High Court had already ruled that it was so powerful in terms of the means it could take to ensure that its wishes were fully and immediately fulfilled.

Speaker of the Knesset Edelstein, in contrast to the false accusations that he had made, respected the High Court's ruling, even though it regarded it as a serious violation of the Knesset's sovereignty, a violation that described its reasons. He chose to resign and remove himself personally from the scene of the dispute between authorities. By the way, a valid 48-hour automatic rejection condition is created until a replacement can be appointed. A two-day rejection would not in principle thwart the High Court's ruling, but merely delay it. This is a necessary consequence of the existing law.

But the High Court chose to set "for justice" an explicitly contrary order to the law. The message that emerges from this ruling, which resulted in the introduction of a few hours in the appointment of a new Knesset chairman, is that the High Court can do everything. Even an action he could not take to fulfill his wishes immediately, even if it meant an explicitly contravention of the law, and a full takeover of the judiciary by the Knesset, in less than a day, even the intensity of the court's entry into the political swamp, even if it was not intended.

In the coming days, we are expected to hear from the High Court on Netanyahu's suit for prime minister in light of the indictment against him, even if a majority of about two-thirds of the Knesset members support him, and although there is no limitation in the law on his tenure before being convicted. The Supreme Court will replace the discretion of the president, who puts a government on a candidate. In fact, it is a requirement that the judges replace the discretion of the people and their elected representatives in the Knesset. The very hearing, and certainly the receipt of the petitions, means the control of the judges in the appointment of the executive branch and the election of the most thorough public.

In the expected hearing next month in petitions to repeal Basic Law: The Nationality, the High Court intends to debate the validity of Basic Laws already; to put itself above the supreme constitutional determination of democracy. Its willingness to discuss the validity of Basic Laws from which the judges derive their authority makes The rule of law in the judges, the judges rule the law, and according to this logic, the Supreme Judges can in the future repeal fundamental laws that determine the scope of their powers.

Therefore, one of the first tasks of the expanding coalition will be the initiative for a responsible amendment of the Basic Law: Judgment - to balance and delineate the proper scope of judicial review in Israel.

Dr. Aviad Bakshi is the head of the legal department at the Ecclesiastical Forum