"Although the court declares early in the morning and evening that it does not replace the government's discretion with its discretion, in practice it appears, on the face of it, that this is actually done.
"The court does not enjoy a relative advantage, and it is doubtful whether its approach is superior to other approaches. The increasing use of the ground of reasonableness in High Court rulings is in fact beyond the standards.
The use of this pretext is ostensibly beneficial in closing loopholes, which is important in itself, and raising the authority of the authority, but at the same time embarrasses the government and the public and causes uncertainty.
It is difficult to predict what the court will decide, what more and what will be banned. "
It is difficult to doubt the seriousness of Supreme Court Justice Noam Solberg's remarks, which were published extensively in "Israel Today" (December 11, 21), but it is worth noting that they are still within the scope of substantive criticism that discusses only the court's intervention, but does not rule out the status quo. Takes such an activist approach. Such a discussion is sinful to the point, sometimes, because it misses the heart of the matter.
The sharp criticism of large sections of the people about the activist approach of the court is not on the legal level. It is not part of the universal debate, which is found in different countries and in different legal systems on issues such as involvement, reasonableness and more. , Is a purely socio-political: a group of about half of Israel's citizens, law enforcers and supporters of a powerful state judiciary, suspects the judiciary and accuses it of political bias. There is no such thing, in a way that gives too much power to the legal system, the one whose character and human composition are associated with the liberal left, so that in its power it balances the policy of government, which in recent decades has been in the hands of the right most of the time.
There are few examples of cases where the court has intervened and brought about legislative changes, but there is nothing wrong with that.
This trust is not an asset that helps the system to operate, but is the heart of the matter: without it there is no legal system, especially in a country where there is no constitution and no ancient source binding other than democratic decisions.
And as long as the system does not face this truth, deal with it and deal with its consequences - the erosion of trust will only deepen.
Therefore, an internal critical response from a senior judge who will be appointed president is good news not necessarily for the court's opponents but for his supporters and for his very existence and resilience.
I recommend the first option.
There are now beautiful tulips.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us