After the storm of leakage, the Supreme Court issued its ruling Monday evening in petitions against the Basic Law to reduce the cause of reasonableness, ruling that it is invalid. The verdict was handed down on Cole's side, with eight justices, headed by President Esther Hayut, supporting the disqualification of the law, while seven opposed it.
The majority justices ruled that the law harms the hard core of the state's democratic characteristics. The justices of the minority opinion, on the other hand, criticized their colleagues that the High Court of Justice does not have the authority to intervene in Basic Laws, and that the law, although it contains difficulties, does not harm the democratic characteristics of the state. Justice Noam Sohlberg strongly criticized the conduct of former Supreme Court President Esther Hayut, which forced the justices to write the ruling in a short and unprecedented timeframe.
Supreme Court hearing, photo: Jonathan Zindel/Flash90
The eight justices in the majority opinion who ruled to strike down the law are: Esther Hayut, Yitzhak Amit, Uzi Fogelman, Dafna Barak-Erez, Anat Baron, Ofer Grosskopf, Khaled Kabob and Ruth Ronen. On the other hand, the seven justices who ruled to reject the petitions are: Noam Sohlberg, David Mintz, Yosef Elron, Yael Willner, Alex Stein, Gila Kanfi-Steinitz and Yehiel Kasher.
Among the justices who oppose the disqualification: Support for the High Court's authority to intervene
Of the seven justices in the minority opinion, some believed that the High Court of Justice has the authority to intervene in Basic Laws, similar to the justices of the majority opinion, but ruled that eliminating the grounds of reasonableness does not constitute a violation of the democratic regime in a way that justifies the disqualification of the law.
Some of the majority justices ruled that the law should be invalidated by virtue of the extreme doctrine of the "unconstitutional constitutional amendment," that is, the disqualification of a Basic Law because of its content and not because of the circumstances of its enactment. This unusual position was also supported by the Attorney General. To date, the Israeli court has not used this doctrine, and only retired Supreme Court Justice George Kara sought to strike down the Nation-State Law through it, but was a lone voice in the panel.
In about a week and a half, Justices Esther Hayut and Anat Baron will retire, and from that time on the High Court of Justice will have a majority of justices who support the rejection of the petitions and the legalization of the law, but this has no legal significance but only symbolic significance.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us