Supreme Court Justice Yitzhak Amit attended a hearing of the Judicial Selection Committee on Tuesday, even though it discussed his own appointment as President of the Supreme Court. The committee members were embarrassed by this, and Ministers Levin and Strok were even forced to appease him and emphasize that the opposition to his appointment was not personal.
"I do think that the people should choose the judges": MK Simcha Rotman at the Constitution Committee (Archive) // Knesset Channel
When the discussion about the appointment of the Chief Justice began, Justice Amit was quick to say, "I'm just sitting here as a planter." Minister Yariv Levin replied, "The plant here is the Minister of Justice."
Later in the discussion, when discussing the appointment of new Supreme Court justices, Justice Amit said: "There are three criteria for selecting Supreme Court justices: professionalism, professionalism and professionalism. In the end, we are a system that provides service to the citizen. You can't take a battalion commander and turn him into chief of staff. The judges of the lower courts look up to the Supreme Court justices."
Levin, who opposes his appointment as president of the Supreme Court, replied: "It's true and it's important, but once you've turned yourselves into a constitutional court, and the values of the state are discussed, worldview is also a criterion." Justice Amit responded, "Out of thousands of cases a year, only ten are controversial cases." Minister Strzok responded: "But they are the most important."
A worldview is also a criterion." Yariv Levin, Photo: Uri Lenz
The committee's hearing lasted about an hour longer than scheduled, and lasted a total of four hours, due to the stormy debate regarding the appointment of Justice Yitzhak Amit as President of the Supreme Court, and the appointment of two additional Supreme Court justices. As stated, although the discussion dealt with the appointment of Justice Amit, he did not leave the committee room, and the embarrassment was felt. For example, Minister Strzok told him: "I appreciate you very much and I have come to appreciate you from our work on the subcommittee, but it cannot be taken from you that just as I am a strict religious, so too you are closely religious in your opinions."
Ministers Levin and Strok argued that the delay in appointing a president to the Supreme Court does not harm the judicial system. The judges objected. Judge Dafna Barak Erez said: "It is important to have stability and the ability to lead processes in the courts. Impermanence pays a price, and the message to the public that there is no permanent president of the Supreme Court is harmful and hurtful." Committee member Attorney Muhammad Naamaneh on behalf of the Israel Bar Association said: "The Supreme Court without a president is like a police force without a police commissioner and like an army without a chief of staff."
Minister Strzok responded, "Justice Fogelman is on duty until October, so there is stability." Justice Uzi Fogelman, who currently serves as acting president of the Supreme Court, replied: "I relinquished the presidency that was intended for me only for a short time for the sake of stability in the court. We want to live in a normal, normal world, and it is normal to have a permanent president." Justice Barak-Erez added: "It is clear to everyone that the situation is not as good when there is no permanent president." Minister Strzok replied: "Just as there are those who are hurt by not appointing a president, there is also a public that will be very hurt by the appointment. I can't charge you anything, I implore you to feel the pain of half a nation."
Levin joined in, saying, "It is clear to me that Justice Amit will be at the end of the president, because in the end the High Court of Justice determines everything. I have no doubt that you will find a way to force the appointment on us. The question is what you will leave to a large public that is trampled by this appointment, just as the verdicts you issued recently and in wartime trampled." Levin went on to say, "Not a week goes by that you don't issue a verdict that stomps on an entire public in wartime."
When the discussion dealt with decision-making during the war, committee member MK Karine Elharrar remarked that "it seems that the war is coming to an end." Minister Strzok responded: "My children and sons-in-law are still being recruited and fighting." MK Elharrar replied: "But this situation will continue for a year, so there won't be an appointment for a year?" At one point, Levin began a long monologue in which on the one hand he attacked the judges and on the other demanded that an agreement be reached. "We thought that in wartime it would be advisable to reach agreements, instead the opposite happens, there is a burst of judgments that have not been given for years, you are in a concerted effort to impose norms on the Israeli public. The exact opposite of what is expected in wartime."
Later, he said that there is not a single case in history where a president has been appointed without the support of the justice minister: "The role of the justice minister on the committee is not merely ceremonial," he said. Some of the justices replied that "it is precisely in these rulings that the Supreme Court has shown that it is diverse in its positions." Levin continued: "Appointing a president by broad consensus is a huge public interest, and coercion would be a serious blow to this interest because of the enormous need for unity in times of war. Far-reaching mutual concessions are needed, despite the recent rulings that make it very difficult, I am still interested in this, an agreement can be reached if each side agrees to pay a harsh price." The parties agreed that another attempt should be made to reach agreements.
As noted, the discussion dealt not only with the appointment of a president to the Supreme Court, but also with the appointment of two new Supreme Court justices. During the hearing, the justices demanded that the two Supreme Court appointments be judges from the district courts, and opposed the appointment of jurists from academia. They reasoned that this was necessary because of the experience acquired by the judges in the lower courts, and Justice Barak Erez emphasized that "the two retiring judges were also like that (Hayut and Baron)."
During the hearing, committee member Elharar demanded that a woman judge be appointed to the Supreme Court, and committee member Ilana Saker emphasized that "a Mizrahi woman." Levine responded, "All of this is important, but there's a worldview," and Westrock added, "Diversity matters too."
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us