Like almost all the crises of the past year, the crisis of incapacitation is rooted in sin. While the Basic Government Law does not grant the authority to issue a prime minister for incapacitation, certainly not for objective medical reasons, in passing comments in two rulings the High Court of Justice cast aspersions on this.
The High Court showed proper restraint when it rejected troubling petitions to remove the prime minister from incapacitation, but then it was Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit who wrote in responses that "it is impossible to rule out a category" of issuing the prime minister to incapacitation even if not for medical reasons. Which is a camouflage trick that you just can. And again - in complete contravention of the Basic Law. And after that, they still say that it is the legislature that flouts the Basic Laws.
The Supreme Court courtroom just before the hearing on the grounds of reasonableness, photo: Olivier Fitoussi
Coalition members celebrating at the plenum, photo: Oren Ben Hakon
Subsequently, erroneous reports were published that the attorney general's office was holding discussions regarding Netanyahu's declaration of incapacitation. The truth is that there were no discussions or even intent. As evidence, the attorney general, in her fairness, later boldly announced that Netanyahu's breach of the conflict of interest arrangement was not grounds for incapacitation. However, it was convenient for the previous attorney general and the current one not to deny the reports except with considerable delay.
After enacting the incapacitation law, Netanyahu "entered the event" with his arrogant speech, as if he had never been to the event before, including on reform matters and even before when he delayed the appointment of a police commissioner, for example, and declared that he would violate the conflict of interest arrangement. The law of incapacitation is correct and democratic in itself, and it cannot be put into the legal category of a "personal law" and the law of petitions against the law should be rejected, but to express itself in human language: bhayat rabak. The loophole called for activist judges. Netanyahu in a china shop.
Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, Photo: Oren Ben Hakon
Conservative majority
In this week's reasonableness case, the court authorized itself to intervene in the content of Basic Laws, with the support of some of the conservative justices. But the incapacitated Supreme Court spit out the blow – and the ranks in the conservative justices' camp were not broken. Which means that even if some of them have sinned in legalizing the swords of interference in Basic Laws to some extent, the possibility of them being pulled from the sheath is as far east as west from the ease with which the entire activist camp group will pull out.
Judge Willner. A conservative woman who committed the sin of legalizing the court's intervention in Basic Laws, photo: Oren Ben Hakon
Both petitions were decided by only one vote. But in a week's time, a "makeover." Two activist justices are retiring, and for the first time in history, the conservative camp wins a majority on the Supreme Court. 7 conservatives vs. 6 activists. In the conservative camp there is more diversity, while in the activist camp there is tighter coalition discipline and it speaks with one voice, and yet, as it never was.
In ten months, Judge Uzi Fogelman will also retire, and the camp will be reduced to five. This is Justice Minister Yariv Levin's great test in the Judicial Selection Committee, to succeed in maintaining the revolution. This is not a surprise, but this week it was emphasized even more strongly – more than any reform, it is the identity of the Supreme Court justices that is critical.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us