"There will be a law that bypasses the High Court while I'm on duty," declared Justice Minister Avi Nissenkorn (blue and white) in an interview with News 12. Dana Weiss on his face, demonstration in court; actual damage to the rule of law and the principle of separation of powers. 

Changing legislation Following a court ruling, not only does it not despise the court - but respects it.When the legislator amends a law or a new law following a court ruling, he actually declares that the judges' comments and their interpretation have been taken into account, and because this is necessary to make changes to the law. This is happening all the time in all countries of the free world, and no one is thinking that this is the end of the rule of law. 

Failure to make judicial decisions does in fact violate the rule of law. Conversely, changing the law or constitutional amendment following a court ruling only strengthens the proper functioning of the democratic process. The last word in a democratic regime cannot be that of the court. The Legislature or Constituent Assembly may, on behalf of the people, lead to changes in the law or constitutional norms, following a ruling of the Supreme Court. 

The courts interpret the law, and if the interpretation given does not conform to the will of the legislature, its right and even its duty to amend the law and clarify its true will. In states where a constitution is in place, judgments that repeal legislation for constitutional reasons can be overridden by a constitutional amendment process. In Europe - the amendment is usually done through a privileged majority of Parliament. The French constitution, for example, has been amended several times in recent decades. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that European countries have had to make constitutional amendments to make the European Community Court the supreme and decisive court on certain issues, thus effectively bypassing the local Supreme Court. 

It is appropriate that the process of constitutional change requires the consent of some privileged majority of the elected people, but the process of overcoming constitutional rulings must not be cumbersome and difficult. An example of a danger posed to the public by a cumbersome bypass process is found in the very unfortunate interpretation given by the US Supreme Court to the Second Amendment of the Constitution, an interpretation that contradicts the simplicity of the Constitution and allows every citizen to hold a large arsenal of weapons. Cumbersome and unsuitable for the modern age, this judgment cannot be changed, which, for most of the population, results in disastrous results, which is the surprising judgment, to say the least, of that court, which held that the death penalty did not contradict the Constitution, which prohibited cruel and inhuman punishment. . 

must not be drawn into clichés whenever a dispute over a court decision. after the courts perform their duties, the final word must rest with the legislature may act by changing the legal base or a constitutional amendment. it happens all over the world.

lawyer Ron writer is Member of the Israeli Bar Association, New York and Paris, and is authorized to appear before the International Court of Justice in The Hague