A full day of arguments could end in one paragraph: The Court seeks to replace Knesset members and enact a basic law that prevents Netanyahu from forming a government • Interpretation
At the end of her argument with 11 High Court judges, the Petitioners' Attorney began to make a flamboyant election speech about the rule of law rule, override the law enforcement system and more and more like the judges. The petitioner warned the judges that could occur if Netanyahu set up the next government and chaired it According to her, whatever happened in the past few months will be nothing compared to what is to come. "The fortress Paul will fall!"
Dramatic day: High Court discusses petitions against Netanyahu // Photo: Knesset channel
Carrying animals stopped the flux with the call that it was populism. "The Supreme Court is not a fortress." This is a true and important statement, and it's good to say, but the Supreme Court's decisions over the past year have kindled the fire in the "Just-not-Bibi" camp, and the High Court is largely responsible for the play of the absurd theater that took place between its walls.
A full day of arguments by the petitioners could amount to one paragraph: the Supreme Court is asked to replace the Knesset members with the legislature and enact a basic law that prevents Netanyahu from forming a government.
The entire text was highlighted by the abyss to which the High Court judges led the state. The petitioners explained in a great way how the judges should act to achieve the desired result. Legal terms in the jargon understood by virtue individuals were crushed into the court of justice - "discretionary model", "indirect attack" , "Constructive moves", "core values core", "values anchor", and more.
The petitioners failed to answer a basic and simple question throughout the day: what is the legal anchor for their petition? To the dismay of the petitioners, the attorneys of the Legislature, the President's House and the executive branch stated simply and in no wise, he asked the court to review and intervene in the decision of the Legislature. A constitutional political decision, which is not at all on the administrative level, and therefore should not be examined in the case studies given in other cases dealing with administrative decisions.
How frustrating it was to hear the Mandelblit High Court Chief of Staff, in legal arguments not holding the bull in his horns. Unlike the legal advisers of the Legislature and Netanyahu's lawyer, Mendelblit had an opinion at the end of the day, and thought that Netanyahu could form a government, with dilemmas on the administrative level. At the same time, he bothered to leave over the head of Netanyahu the reversing sword, the opinion of which is only at this time and may change as the day comes.
Mendelblit consciously chose not to present this position that allows Netanyahu to form the government many months ago, when the question arose on his desk. Today, we all know that the USSR chose to hold the terrorist power against the prime minister. Thus, Mandelblit consciously allowed the "just not Bibi" camp to keep the public and the media in Netanyahu for many months.
More on:
The hearing of the High Court in petitions against the Unity Agreement ended
In the next judicial exercise the loser will be the High Court
The High Court Ruled: An Interim Order Against Extending the Role of State Attorney Dan Eldad
According to Gidi Weitz's publication in Haaretz, Mandelblit recently explained that he was conducting phone calls in the sense that he was listening, and behaving like someone under surveillance. He hinted that Netanyahu wanted to do away with it in public terms, believing that continuing Netanyahu's rule was dangerous to the state because it would crush the systems of law and justice.
Obviously Mandelblit is in severe vertigo. It would be good for the Attorney General to put the keys on the table, and one hour earlier.