democracy? Not for us: what happens when the retired judge Barak and his colleagues impose their political way on us? - Walla! news

Aharon Barak interview (Channel 13)

Retired judge Aharon Barak is an intellectual.

True.

And like any true intellectual, not for him is the very unclean and non-ideal way of democracy in action - the tiresome negotiations between parties in a coalition, between opposition and coalition, between different values ​​and social interests, when everyone who represents a certain interest pulls in his direction;

When a member of Knesset who opposes this section of the bill and the other supports it, and the first says: "Okay, I will support, but on the condition that you support the section I propose," and turns to a minister in his party to put pressure on a minister in another party.

And so, day after day, and sometimes night after night, until at the end of the process the Knesset decides by a majority of votes on the same compromise arrangement that the public - that is, the majority of the people - can, they hope, live with.

It's called a law.

The resulting result is not always pleasing to intellectuals like Aharon Barak.

A true intellectual has a conception and it is clean, orderly and ethical - and dictates according to what norms the state will be governed and what are the ideal laws that will determine how its citizens should behave.

There is an eye-opening book, "Intellectuals and Society", by the renowned American economist Prof. Thomas Sowell.

In his book, an analyst questions the phenomenon of the top-down domination of the will of the intellectuals over society, and the destruction and ruin that such domination has brought with it throughout history.

Indeed, it is enough to look at the recent history of the 20th century to see what intellectuals, such as those in Russia or Cambodia, have brought about in extreme cases.

This book also has a chapter entitled: "The Intellectuals and the Law", which mainly discusses progressive activist judges and their influence on Western society (which does not come close to the one that exists in Israel).

Aharon Barak (photo: official website, Shlomi Gabai)

Since the law - as the parliaments, or the American Congress, or in our case the Knesset, passes it - is not necessarily in the spirit of the legal intellectual, when he sits in court, he will rule more than once and twice against it.

Why?

Because the ideas of the legal intellectual, compared to the ideas of the politicians, are better, higher - and in the words of our Supreme Court, more "reasonable" and "proportionate".

A law that the majority wants?

That his elected representatives absent the "enlightenment" enacted it?

It's not for our judges, or at least, not always.

Because they are, it turns out, the law.

And for those who don't understand what I'm even talking about here, perhaps because they are fed on a daily basis full of uniform communication, I will try to clarify briefly: when a judge decides that the government did indeed act according to a law that the Knesset accepted, but that such legal action is not "reasonable" and therefore he, the judge, decides otherwise instead, he actually cancels the law and rules his value opinion, which is the opinion of the intellectual, over the state and the people,

This reasonableness test has nothing and a half to do with law and justice, because in the statement it is not related to the law and in fact comes in its place.

When the judges do this time and time again, they are effectively nullifying the laws of the land and effectively turning us into a lawless country.

Because "the law" is what the elites decide on each time anew, and not necessarily what the sovereign determined and recorded in the law book for the information and guidance of every citizen, official and minister.

More in Walla!

Netanyahu did not "enter the event", he is the event itself, and he has no intention of stopping the revolution

To the full article

More in Walla!

• Ben Gvir's chief of staff: "Make Rabin a martyr and legalize everything he did"

• The car's wheels were punctured and "Only Bibi" signs were stuck on it, the police started an investigation

• The best content in the world at your home with an advanced viewing experience and a special price

"The Legal Statesman".

That's what Aharon Barak called himself and his peers in the Supreme Court.

Why did he use the word "statesman" and not "politician"?

Not really different, but probably sounds less explicit.

And being the "statesmen of the law", they actually intervene in any political issue they want ("everything is fair"), and impose their worldview and their political path on us.

In essence, even if by one name or another, it is an oligarchy in action.

This is certainly not democracy in action.

And those who in their hearts (even if they won't admit it openly) definitely prefer the "enlightened" judge to be the one to determine the rules of our political and civil life, instead of the "unenlightened" sovereign, that is, the people through their unworthy elected officials - of course it is their right to think so.

But I have only one small request for him: that he not carry a pro-democracy sign in the demonstration tomorrow, because he is not in favor of it.

He is against her.

• news

• opinions and interpretations

Tags

• Aharon Barak

• The legal revolution