The bites, the arguments - and the jokes: everything you need to know about the historic hearing in the High Court of Justice - voila! news

2023-09-12T21:14:46.549Z

Highlights: The High Court hearing lasted more than half a day and was watched by more than 200,<> people. Representatives of the government and the Knesset argued before the justices of the Supreme Court. Justice Amit: "Democracy does not die in one fell swoop, it dies in a series of steps" Supreme Court President Esther Hayut: "We will not cancel Basic Laws every Monday and Thursday, the question is whether there is a fatal blow to democracy" At one point, MK Tali Gottlieb burst into the discussion and said: "The Knessett is not in a democracy"

The hearing, which lasted more than half a day, was watched by more than 200,<> people • During it, representatives of the government and the Knesset argued before the justices of the Supreme Court, and the justices sent messages and warnings about the problematic legislation: "Democracy does not die in one fell swoop, it dies in a series of steps," Justice Amit said

In the video: The government vs. the High Court: the debate on the abolition of the grounds of reasonableness/spokesperson for the judiciary

13 hours, 15 judges and a series of petitions filed against the first law approved by the Knesset as part of the legal revolution. Tuesday's High Court hearing was historic by Israeli standards, with the justices listening to both sides for more than half a day, asking them questions and emphasizing: "We will not cancel Basic Laws every Monday and Thursday, the question is whether there is a fatal blow to democracy."

As of 23:30 p.m., there were no official figures on the number of viewers who followed the live broadcast of the dramatic hearing, although data from the judiciary's YouTube channel shows that the broadcast recorded about 200,21 views.

At the end of the hearing, Supreme Court President Esther Hayut said that the decision would be given only later, and gave the parties the opportunity to submit supplementary arguments made during the day within 15 days. Hayut initially demanded that the completions be no more than ten pages, government representative Attorney Bombach demanded more, and in the end <> pages were agreed.

Historical picture. 15 High Court justices discuss reasonableness/screenshot, Judiciary Spokesperson's Office

Gottlieb's outburst

At the beginning of the historic discussion, Hayut referred to an amendment to Basic Law: Judiciary, which eliminates the use of the reasonableness pretext against government and ministerial moves, and turned to the Knesset representative at the hearing, after he argued that ministers are still obligated to act reasonably: "Who supervises that they act reasonably? Or as the attorney general wrote: 'You agree that there is a law but there is no judgment.'"

At one point, MK Tali Gottlieb burst into the discussion and said: "The Knesset is not in a democracy." Hayut turned to the Knesset member: "Mrs. Gottlieb, since she is a lawyer, knows that they don't burst from the benches." Gottlieb replied, "Even when I was a lawyer I lashed out, that's okay."

How do you turn plastic packaging into a potted plant?

In cooperation with Tamir Recycling Corporation

"The Knesset is not in a democracy." MK Gottlieb/Official website, Oren Ben Hakon

The explanation of animals

Hayut explained to the government representative the importance of the reasonableness cause, noting that "there are dozens of different ones, some would say since the establishment of the state or at least 40 years - and you block all the courts from granting relief to litigants and say that a court cannot hear."

"There are thousands of individual decisions that ministers make and delegate authority that affect citizens on their daily basis and complain about unreasonable decisions. They have no evidence to prove that there are extraneous considerations or other grounds, and they say the outcome is unlikely." However, she noted: "In most cases we do not intervene, but the law blocks this possibility from all courts in the country."

"In most cases, we don't intervene." President of the Supreme Court Esther Hayut/official website, Alex Kolomoisky

Storm of the Declaration of Independence

The government representative, Attorney Bombach, caused a storm when he noted that the Declaration of Independence is not a legal authority: "The Declaration of Independence was urgently signed by 37 people who were not elected at all, is this the source of authority? Is that what will turn us off?" He later sought to clarify his statement: "The government has no intention of changing the Declaration of Independence, but that does not make it a legal text."

Justice Noam Sohlberg expressed his concerns about a decision on the cancellation of the reasonableness cause. "If we, as judges, rule according to the Declaration of Independence, we may make a mistake, because the ruling will mean that its validity will be forever," he explained. "I am under the impression that there is a chance at this time of a gathering of state-loving elements who want to enact a Basic Law: Legislation."

The attorney general's representative responded: "Absolutely not, it's not eternal, there has never been a law that denied authority to this court and to the entire court. There is also no law that abolished the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, but suddenly we are in the process and it is impossible to close our eyes to the government's announcement on January 4 that its goal is to reform the judicial system."

Provoked a storm. Adv. Bombach/official website, Olivier Fitoussi

Rothman's Show

A confrontation broke out between Hayut and Rothman, after the chairman of the constitutional committee asked: "Can you fearlessly and impartially discuss this issue, can you make a decision without a conflict of interest?" Hayut replied, "We are not dealing with our dignity – we are dealing with the interests of the public, what relief can we provide if our hands are tied from granting such remedies? That's the question. It's a shame that my lord is sliding into realms of honor."

Rothman added: "It is clear to me that your honor thinks that you are doing well – if you will be the final arbiter on this question as well, where are the checks and balances? You're not open to criticism." Judge Fogelman rebuked him, saying, "Sir, there is an expectation of understanding of a court, we are in a legal discussion, where is the legal argument?" Later, the MK's spokeswoman was removed from the courtroom because she was filming during the hearing.

Confronted the judges. MK Rothman/official website, Olivia Fitoussi

"You know the law is bad."

Justice Amit turned to government representative Ilan Bombach and said: "I sit here for hours and I hear - we made a bad law, we know it's bad, and now we'll offer them tricks and shticks to circumvent it. We suggest you do this and that, why indirectly?"

In addition, Amit said that "democracy does not die in one fell swoop, it dies in a series of measures, and as you know there are several proposals to deny choice to minorities."