Last week, Supreme
Court Justice Noam Solberg attended a conference of the Association for Public Law, where he said: "Although the court declares this morning and tonight that it does not replace the government's discretion with its discretion, in practice it seems, on the face of it, that this is actually done," he said. Solberg, "The court deviates from its natural function and enters the areas of operation of the executive branch."
The tool used by the Supreme Court to invade non-Lou territory is the ground of reasonableness, by which the Supreme Court invalidates laws, appointments and decisions of the government and the Knesset.
The result, Solberg argues, is a growing suspicion on the part of the public in court and its considerations.
Solberg's choice of the word "suspicion" is too soft.
According to a survey of public trust in the University of Haifa's legal system, published in early November, public trust in the judiciary and the Supreme Court has fallen to an unprecedented low since 2008. The public does not suspect judges are driven by personal considerations, but it is certain.
Also in 2019, Solberg participated in the conference of the Association for Public Law and even then criticized the use of the ground of reasonableness, which in his opinion is vague, and subject to the arbitrariness of the judge who uses it.
He remarked that judicial interpretation also has a limit: "A law of the Knesset of Israel is not 'beautiful literature.' ", And warned of the invasion of the Supreme Court and the cause of the almighty likelihood of other authorities.
It is possible that in 2020 Solberg also participated in the conference of the Association for Public Law, and it is possible that he also commented in a reasoned, moderate and considered manner on his comments regarding the Supreme Court, but what does it matter? Solberg represents a minority position in the Supreme Court. And as such it is intended only to conjure up inconveniences from time to time, and to have a cold disregard from its fellow judges.
The Minister of Internal Security, Amar Bar-Lev of the Labor Party, also spoke this week, also on matters related to his field of work. On Saturday night, he explained on Channel 12 that the 14-year-old Arab girl, who stabbed a Jewish mother in the presence of her toddler children in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, "argued with her father about smoking a hookah and other things." Two days later, Bar-Lev met with Victoria Noland, Deputy Secretary of State, and concluded the meeting with a tweet: "(She) was interested, among other things, in settler violence and how to reduce tensions in the region and strengthen the Palestinian Authority." The minister explained to her exactly how, as if he was still active on the left wing with a sign "Enough of the occupation", as if he was still a member of the "Zionist camp" party, and believes, as in 2018, that "of course there is a very acute problem with this name", mainly because "At least twenty percent of the public is non-Jewish," and those 20 percent interest Bar-Lev far more than the 80 percent.
It is common to say that the Supreme Court is supposed to protect citizens from the tyranny of the majority. But instead of the tyranny of the majority, which some would call "democracy," we got the tyranny of the Supreme Court, the judiciary, and ministers like Amar Bar-Lev, who under normal circumstances were supposed to spend their entire political careers in opposition, along with their Meretz comrades. Bar-Lev's extremist positions are worth seven seats today, but for coalition reasons he has a majority and freedom of action in government and the support of the Supreme Court. There majority judges can override the worldview of minority judges like Solberg. But on the Israeli street, Solberg represents a larger public than the president represents animals, and certainly larger than Bar-Lev represents.
Until the formation of the current government,
citizens of the type not represented in the Supreme Court could take solace in the fact that at least they were represented in the coalition and government. This softened somewhat the relentless intervention of the Netanyahu governments by the judiciary in decisions, laws, appointments, and even dismissals: When Justice Minister Amir Ohana sought to fire office director Ami Palmor, the ombudsman intervened and declared "legal difficulties." A petition was filed in the High Court by the Movement for Quality of Government. Although a CEO is a trustee, the ombudsman ordered Ohana to go first to the Civil Service Commissioner, warning him of "governmental instability." Perhaps he even asked to bring a note from his parents.
And here, this week, Education Minister Yifat Shasha Bitton is massacring her office's director general, Yigal Slovik - also in this case, a servant of trust. and no petition was not submitted to the Supreme Court. may be submitted later. and maybe I will grow wings and tail with a pom-pom.
intervention of the Supreme Court majority opinion is not needed when opposition parties Mktzh-ktzho of the Israeli left find themselves in government and Public Security Minister Omar Bar Lev complains to an American statesman about "settler violence." Transport Minister Merav Michaeli does not need the High Court to ban investments on roads in Judea and Samaria. She does it herself.
In order to come to power, Lapid and Bennett brought to the center of the stage the political arm of the High Court, and the symbiosis between Meretz, Labor and the Supreme Court creates a fundamental change in public power relations. The road.All the systems against it, and in none of them has a representation according to its proportion in the population.The political and legal constellation allows the anomaly in which the true majority is pushed and kicked out of all circles of influence.It is not a healthy, or logical, or stable situation.
The judiciary has long defeated the political system.
The politicians on the right came to terms with the loss.
The politicians on the left have taken care of staffing the justice system with people who will cooperate with them, and now they are in power.
It is a victory of a very certain kind, not necessarily democratic, and it does not justify victory dances on the head of the right.
Victory is good, but you should be careful with the festivities.
There is always another round.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us