The demonstrators in the city square fear that the legal reform will produce unbridled governmental power.
This is a justified concern.
The balance between the three governing authorities is the basis of democratic life.
But what if the judiciary is stronger than the other authorities - without a balance check?
As of today, there is no brake in front of the High Court, other than the will of the judges and their values. Those who oppose the reform put their trust in the judges - perhaps because they share their values - but many do not trust them. They see how certain worldviews are involved in their rulings, especially in matters of religion and state, security, nationality and more.
President of the Supreme Court, Judge Esther Hayut, photo: Oren Ben Hakon
Supporters of the reform have become accustomed for years to protest against the usurpation of their freedom to decide for themselves the matters that are in public controversy.
They couldn't do more than that.
The High Court thought differently from them. He turned fundamental laws into the constitution and placed them above the ordinary laws - even though the sovereign did not authorize him to do so. The Knesset was lax and did not stand guard. A certain part of the political map was comfortable with the High Court "helping" him promote issues in which he He is in the minority in the Knesset, but among the judges he is the majority.
And still the basic laws are chapters of the constitution.
By virtue of the principle of jurisdiction, the Court of Justice is authorized to judge. But it is not possible for it to discuss basic laws, because it is not above them. It sounds obvious, but what really prevents the Court of Justice from discussing them today?
Nothing.
If he wants to discuss fundamental laws and reject them, the government will be forced to accept the judgment in order not to reach a constitutional crisis.
Thus, in the name of "substantial democracy", the court damages basic democracy.
As a general rule, what is the purpose of electing representatives to the Knesset, if what determines is the reason of reasonableness and the opinion of the supreme judges?
A demonstration against the legal reform in Tel Aviv, photo: Koko
A court that takes upon itself the right to discuss articles of a constitution holds unprecedented power in the world.
Such power corrupts even the righteous.
Shabbat is mentioned in the Parashat "Judges": "And you shall not take a bribe, because a bribe will blind the wise and pervert the words of the righteous."
We rightly attribute the prohibition to elected officials, but originally it deals with Israeli judges.
According to the Talmud, bribery can also mean paying respect to the judge on the part of the litigant in order to create a good impression on him and bias his ruling.
If so in private cases, it is even more true at the national level.
Unlimited power for the judges and the assumption that the judgment of the supreme judges is superior to that of the elected officials - may corrupt and blind the eyes of the judges from seeing their people, and distort their rulings in favor of the social reference group to which they belong.
Israel is a Jewish and democratic country.
The law of return is an existential element in her life.
What can stop the Court of Justice if it decides to cancel the Law of Return on the grounds that it is a discriminatory law that is contrary to a basic law: human dignity and freedom? Are you, who are protesting against any change in the legal state of affairs, relaxed about such a scenario? I am not, and like many others.
Human rights are first and foremost the right of man to decide his fate through his vote at the ballot box.
We have never agreed to entrust our independent thinking and the decision on our values to a legal oligarchy, however smart it may be.
That's why we elected this government, to give us back our freedom.
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us