Attorney Osnat Mark, who is to be a member of the Likud Judiciary Committee, announced that she would look for a candidate with a "Likud-based view" and made it clear that what guided her "is not the ballot, but the moral and legal standards that correspond with the ballot box. A conservative right-wing world. "In response, she was criticized by critics, and Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer also said:" The idea of ​​choosing judges is political is a twisted idea. " 

I would like to argue the opposite: The candidate's legal-political ideology is a proper consideration in his appointment to the Supreme Court, as it is an important balancing mechanism and democracy of democracy for judicial review itself. In the term "ideology," the intention of the candidate's judgment judgments may affect his expected decision as a judge; A compilation of legal, social and moral principles, including his personal view of the judge's proper role and views on controversial issues: demolition of terrorists' houses, rights of labor infiltrators and refugees, the legal status of the territories, and more.

In order to fulfill their duties, we grant judges independence judgments expressed through a series of arrangements: a permanent appointment until their retirement at age 70, their wages cannot be harmed, and their authority is almost impossible to defer or reduce. These privileges make the Supreme Court an anti-sovereign institution - that is, an "exceptional" institution used to tyranny, in a system once again the majority in polling stations.

However, this is not an unregulated institution and absolute sovereignty. The judges are not Plato's philosophical kings, nor have they inherited their positions. Their oversight is done through a selection and screening mechanism from the outset by the Judiciary Committee, which also takes into account the candidate's judicial ideology. Osnat Mark's and Ayelet Shaked's desire to elect national conservative candidates originated in a sense of broad sections of the public, that the balance between authorities was violated, that the Supreme Court crossed the border by repealing doctrines such as non-justification and standing, expanding its cause of action and adopting its own authority Unlimited repeal of laws and probably basic laws. 

The public also seems unconvinced by the denials of the top presidency in recent years - Miriam Naor and Esther Hayes - that Israeli judges cannot be divided into activists and conservatives, or that there is no political inclination in his decisions. Week after week, the best decisions are made with the left and its subjects, and the judges are divided into liberals and conservatives: the disqualification of bonus bonuses for theaters in Judea and Samaria, the repeal of the Deposit Law Encouraging Infiltrators' Exit from Israel, decisions on the rejection of Knesset candidates, the repeal of the regulation law, and more. Even when the court unanimously ruled "for the right" - as in the petitions against Netanyahu - the ideological division is clear from the justifications of the judges.

US Justice Ruth Ginsburg - who is admired for activism advocates - usually explains that the sentence is like the pendulum. When it moves too far in one direction, it will exert a force to return it in the other direction. The requirement for the appointment of conservative judges is a legitimate requirement to bring the Supreme Court back to a balance point. 

Dr. Shuki Segev is Senior Lecturer in Law School, Netanya Academic College, Constitutional Law Specialist, and Philosophy of Judgment