President Rivlin dismissed the claim that his decision not to pass Netanyahu's mandate to form a government stems from personal resentment, explaining that in his estimation, none of the candidates has a realistic possibility of forming a government. The president's decision not only contradicts the Basic Law: the government, but also takes sides in the political race: it allows Blue and White to leave in its hands the Presiding Committee and use the threat of personal legislation as a lever in unity negotiations. 

The Likud protested the move and contacted the president to reconsider the issue. Organizations in contemporary society, such as traffic governability and democracy, turned also to the President to this effect, but stated that because they believe in judicial restraint, there will petition the High Court and respect his decision. 

It is a terrible mistake that leaves the field of public right and the player constitutional without realizing that in order to To lead constitutional changes, the right has to come up and play, to offer a conceptual and governing alternative, even when the constitutional rules are not at ease. 

At this time, according to customary constitutional rules, the president is subject to High Court criticism. Recently, we have also witnessed several petitions against the president for failing to impose the government on Netanyahu. These petitions were rejected on the grounds that these were theoretical petitions, as Rivlin had not imposed Netanyahu did this task. The High Court did not dismiss the petitions unauthorized or that the petition was not justiciable, but did signal his dissatisfaction. The above signal was apparently also absorbed in the President's House. The right criticized these High Court decisions, which left the legal sword turning over Netanyahu and the right. But it is important to understand that these are the constitutional rules that are valid and valid today. 

In a democratic state based on a balance and braking system, the right has the right to work for fundamental law change, which will reduce the intervention of the High Court, and even for the choice of conservative judges, who have a judgment of judicial restraint. 

The right must petition the High Court against the president's decision, which, as stated, contravenes the law and its purpose. But beyond that, the "constitutional market" is a market of demand and supply and must not leave the field vacant, without significant competition to the left and its representatives. First, for training flag bearers (petitioners) for ideas and conceptions of the right. Secondly, and assuming that the High Court does not intervene, this will reveal its political bias, which may be used by the right down the road. And if the High Court does nonetheless extend relief to the Right in contrast to all that is expected, we can happily say that the High Court is occasionally right too. . 

Dr. Shuki Segev is a senior lecturer at the Law School, Netanya Academic College