The Supreme Court ruling on the unity government was reached in a game that should not have been worn in the first place. However, let me not marvel that the Deri Panhaksi law was given a new life even though it did not exist in the law. The justices left an opening for legislative intervention
Don't be angry if I do not join the Supreme Court Chorus, although I welcome their decision. Yes, I personally liked the 11-0 result achieved in the High Court of Justice.
Photo: GPO
The thing is, 11-0 was achieved in a game that should not have been played in the first place, and above all - no one guarantees that this week's game was the determining factor. The game was unnecessary because the law is clear and unambiguous: Netanyahu, despite the three indictments, which he and his constituents would have waived, could form a government. The High Court should not have been interrupted for this, which is exactly what the High Court itself has ruled. Secondly, the High Court has been asked to discuss a coalition agreement, some will even say a draft, and even legislation that is in full swing. And the High Court has ruled: We will not discuss legislation at this time before it is finalized.
More on:
• The President lives in a High Court hearing: "When has the court intervened in a legislative process while it is happening?"
• Stop the constitutional train accident
• The rule of law against the rule of law
This show could have been spared, even though it resulted in good ratings - and personally I prefer a good legal discussion over a reality show, and more with such a result. "Wedding at first sight"? I would rather call this week's events a "late wedding." The sweeping result proves how unnecessary the discussion was. The High Court is here to decide, not to divide scores.
But there was reason to fear that we know the players. And what is written in explanations for their decisions is not to be ignored, where they raise almost every second or third sentence that leaves the door half open so they can intervene when there is legislation. A kind of gun, symbolic of course, that you leave on the table.
So let me not be amazed, first of all, that the Deri Panhaksi life has been renewed even though it does not exist, which brings us to the principle that the High Court places itself above the Basic Law. Even in the polite ping-pong between the President and the Attorney General It is quite clear that "everything is judicial" with the attorney. Advocate Michael Rabello did well not confront the president, even though it does not appear in the verdicts, it must certainly appear in the professional literature of the judges. Remembering "Law has no borders. The whole country is a trial"? Ravillo was right, the president was wrong.
Full of country law - and politics of the whole country, Limor Semimian demanded this week: The judges showed great concern for the opposition as they entered the debate on the composition of the Knesset committees. Interestingly, a little less than two months ago, when Knesset Speaker Edelstein insisted that the Knesset committees be formed on the basis of the agreed-upon, multi-year procedure between the opposition and the coalition and according to the Knesset's bylaws, we saw no protest that a coalition of 61 more or less trampled the opposition and left it unopposed. No committee
should understand that we are 500 days, according to a faculty member count, of political fog and uncertainty, and it is clear that everything starts and ends with "Yes Netanyahu" or "Not Netanyahu." ', Before Netanyahu's tenure, so the desire of the High Court judges to fortify their power - and, more specifically, their superiority - was born in the 1990s. Then the judges entered the same deep water about which the late President of the Court, the late Moshe Landau, spoke. The late Yitzhak Rabin, all of us, and certainly the left, cherish his legacy, must remember his immortal statement: "Without the High Court and without B'Tselem." After the Netanyahu era, it could be Gantz or Ashkenazi who find themselves in conflict with the High Court. Who knows, maybe the big push for the cease-fire will come at all. And maybe a final word for the right-wing attitude toward the High Court. Did anyone read the left-wing commentators yesterday?