One statement by Justice Mazuz clarified what is behind the High Court hearing - a struggle for power • Concerns of top judges from changing "rules of the game" stood out from their remarks • Commentary

It was hard not to miss the moment when Judge Manny Mazuz held the bull in his horns and pointed to the burning spot in the bones of the High Court judges.

High Court Summary Summary: A special zoom meeting with the best commentators

For a long time, the judges tried to get the prime minister's lawyer to withdraw from the coalition agreement regarding the freeze of senior public service appointments. When Mazuz realized that this was unsuccessful, he said in a clear voice the break in the coalition agreement drafted by members of the Legislature, which imposed the fear and fear on the top judges. A paragraph dealing with the will of the executive branch to change the rules of the game for appointments The phrase "rules of the game" was blurted out, but he expresses precisely the central problem with the method of appointments that he worked on in his cap as Attorney General and his return to the Supreme Court along with his other members of the Justice Hall.

The fear of changing the rules of the game for senior officials in the public service system, in a way that would transfer the weight of the decision to select a candidate for office to the elected rank and not to jurors and legal counsel, causes the judges much anxiety.

More on:

• Stop the constitutional train accident

• The hearing on the petitions against Netanyahu: The High Court has no way to get out of it peacefully

• The High Court is largely responsible for the absurd theater that took place today between its walls

This anxiety has emerged in the repeated remarks of the Vice President of the Supreme Court, Hanan Meltzer, that the appointments be made by law. A waiter made sure to emphasize, and demanded that things be made clear in writing; It shall be written that the appointments shall be made in accordance with the rules of administrative law and in accordance with the law and in accordance with the case law. A waiter demanded not to be written by law, but by law. The law and administrative law are written by the judges and legal advisers expressed in the term of the rule of law, and not by the legislators who govern the rule of law. 

These are not semantic changes but the fear and fear of holding the Hall of Justice at the top of the hill, from which power and control will be taken away. Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit expressed the same concern.

It is a struggle for power. The power of appointments. Who will control the appointments; Jurists or elected officials. 

One of the key rulings in which the High Court established its involvement and power in the appointment and dismissal of elected officials and public servants is in "Halachic Deri". The High Court held that investigative proceedings, especially if they reached the stage of prosecution, could be the basis for termination of office and counterterrorism. Appointments. As he wrote this week in Haaretz, Prof. Yoav Dotan, Head of the Department of Public Law at the Hebrew University's Faculty of Law, the responsibility for "Halachic Deri has become a political tool of liquidation", as he puts it, falls on those who are in charge of maintaining the rule of law, including those who currently serve in the system. Trial and prosecutor's office.

The termination of office of office bearers - and also elected officials - following the indictment, as Dari's law states, explains Prof. Dotan, is not enshrined in law and even contravenes existing legislation. Despite this, it has made the investigative and criminal procedure a method of eliminating competitors and rivals in the public and political system. 

Certainly, the power created by the High Court and the Attorney General in senior public service appointments is a danger to both the rule of law and democracy. Hopefully, the Legislature and the executive will assert their right to set new "rules of play" for senior appointments, even if it requires a confrontation with the judiciary.