Aharon Barak, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, has been forgiving in the past of reducing the cause of reasonableness. This is the case in an interview he gave in the past on the Knesset channel, in an interview at the Makor Rishon conference, and in remarks he gave last month at Reichman University. There are gaps between Barak's reduction and Rothman and Levin's contraction, and frankly, between Barak's own reductions as well. But his speech at yesterday's demonstration seems to have erased those as well. Barak sounded more forceful in this speech than before.
When the Constitution Committee began deliberations on amending the Basic Law: Judiciary to reduce the grounds of reasonableness, supporters of the legislation waved under the leadership of senior jurist Prof. Yoav Dotan. Dotan is considered one of the leaders in criticism of administrative law in Israel, as formulated by the High Court of Justice. Accordingly, opponents of the law waved off the words of other jurists.
After Dotan's article was published in Israel Hayom against the legislation, he received requests for interviews from all the media, and his remarks became the banner of protest. But the same hugs Dotan received from both sides were cynical. This is because Dotan himself published an outline for reducing the reasonableness that is softer than the current one.
On the eve of the vote on the grounds of reasonableness: more than 90,<> demonstrated in front of the Knesset // Photo: Yoni Rikner
However, the situation is such that both supporters and opponents of the legislation are not interested in this outline. In truth, Rothman and Levin may find an opening for further softening, but they believe, with a great deal of justice, that there is no other side to talk to. They think that the protest climbed a tree so high that even Dotan's softened layout will not satisfy it. Neither her nor the Attorney General. Ultimately, they are unwilling to make almost any effective change, with an emphasis on the effective one, to create a slightly more conservative Supreme Court.
The waves of populism carry idle words about love, unity and dialogue. However, as far as is apparent, these will not bear fruit. In the end, the question arises: Are the left and activist jurists willing to give up on the issue of the configuration of current administrative-constitutional law? We didn't really hear an answer to that. Even at the president's residence, when they showed some willingness, they demanded another activist tool in return.
When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the left tends to ask the question: "What territory would you be willing to give up in exchange for peace?" Now, the left must answer for itself what area of judicial activism it is willing to hand over to Rothman and Levin's voters in order to restore calm to our place.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us