Kalman Liebskind's recent investigations into the Supreme Court justices and their liberal attitude to the list of motives, conflicts of interest and, in general, the appearance of justice, have credited us with an onslaught of interviews and opinion pieces by former judges and academics.

Strasberg Cohen, Strashnov, Naor and others explained to us that we do not understand the essence of justice, and in general we are ignorant and peoples of the lands because of our fear that a judge who discusses the affairs of his friends may suffer from biased judgment. The retired judges can be understood. Anyone who has become accustomed to seeing the private system as his private property may lose his judgment when raising a hand on his home. 

But how is it that academia is also mobilizing to defend these flaws? In an article published in Makor Rishon, Prof. Yuval Albashan claimed that the judges' decisions regarding disqualification are transparent to the public and are reviewed before and after. Albashan apparently forgot that by law, judge disqualification matters are not reviewed by the Ombudsman, and to allow the publication of a particular complaint about a judge, a special approval procedure is required by both the President of the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice. So there is neither criticism nor transparency here. Prof. Yaniv Rosnai, in a column published this week in this newspaper ("Non-Substantial Conflict", 20.07), was also not convinced by the investigations that the judges were on trial in bias. 

The president of the Supreme Court handed over mediation cases to her good friend, retired judge Hila Gerstel. Sat on appeals against decisions of another good company. Dealt with portfolios of companies represented by her husband. Other judges included and removed litigants from the list of motives without any explanation and others discussed the cases on the list. Not to mention the false answers given in response to complaints to the Commissioner.

But all this is probably not convincing enough. To Rosnai's credit, he at least explains why he is willing to ignore all the information revealed in the investigations. According to him, the criticism is intended to weaken or take over the judicial system, and therefore even those who believe that there have been defects in the work of the court, should mobilize and protect the system, its lack of transparency, conflicts of interest. All in order to allow the High Court to intervene in governmental decisions, without fear or apprehension. 

This perception gives the judicial system an open check. No matter what happens and what is revealed, the legal-media brass will turn its eyes to the other side. The decisions of the elected officials, the muses in the academy will also be silenced.

It is often claimed that right-wing voters are willing to turn a blind eye to the corruption offenses allegedly committed by Benjamin Netanyahu, due to his support for his political path. I do not know if this is the situation among right-wing voters, but there is no doubt that the Supreme Court cracked the base of the High Court party. As long as the Supreme It seems that for all crimes the love of power of the unelected will be covered.

Adv. Simcha Rotman is the legal advisor of the Governance Movement