Post by cjm on Jan 2, 2024 8:38:56 GMT
Israeli Supreme Court Strikes Down Judicial Reform, 8-7, Despite Ongoing War
Rather curious: They strike down the very law which prevents them from striking down laws
Rather curious: They strike down the very law which prevents them from striking down laws
There were three issues at stake. The first was whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the case at all. Israel does not have a formal constitution and has no real judicial review; the courts simply seized the power to review legislation in the 1990s.
In the absence of a constitution, Israel has relied on several Basic Laws that establish the structure of the government. But these can be amended by a simple majority vote of the parliament, or Knesset, which is how the judicial reform was passed last year.
The Supreme Court took the case eagerly, and heard oral arguments in September, before the war. Netanyahu and the coalition government said that the Court had no authority to nullify amendments to the Basic Law, from which it drew its own authority.
Ultimately, 12 of the 15 justices agreed with the argument that the Supreme Court could nullify amendments to the Basic Law, even the Basic Law governing the judiciary itself. (Conservative critics say that only underlines the need for judicial reform.)
The second issue was the judicial reform itself. The court split closely, but ultimately the outgoing Supreme Court president, Esther Hayut, ruled that “reasonableness” was appropriate, given the lack of other checks on legislative or executive power.
Part of Hayut’s argument was that the reform had only been passed by the governing majority in the Knesset in a party-line vote, suggesting it lacked broader political appeal — though there is no existing supermajority requirement for amending Basic Laws.
The third issue was whether Israel’s Declaration of Independence establishes a constitutional foundation for Israel. The document proclaims Israel shall provide equal rights for all, among other ideas, though the signatories did not think they were making law.
In the absence of a constitution, Israel has relied on several Basic Laws that establish the structure of the government. But these can be amended by a simple majority vote of the parliament, or Knesset, which is how the judicial reform was passed last year.
The Supreme Court took the case eagerly, and heard oral arguments in September, before the war. Netanyahu and the coalition government said that the Court had no authority to nullify amendments to the Basic Law, from which it drew its own authority.
Ultimately, 12 of the 15 justices agreed with the argument that the Supreme Court could nullify amendments to the Basic Law, even the Basic Law governing the judiciary itself. (Conservative critics say that only underlines the need for judicial reform.)
The second issue was the judicial reform itself. The court split closely, but ultimately the outgoing Supreme Court president, Esther Hayut, ruled that “reasonableness” was appropriate, given the lack of other checks on legislative or executive power.
Part of Hayut’s argument was that the reform had only been passed by the governing majority in the Knesset in a party-line vote, suggesting it lacked broader political appeal — though there is no existing supermajority requirement for amending Basic Laws.
The third issue was whether Israel’s Declaration of Independence establishes a constitutional foundation for Israel. The document proclaims Israel shall provide equal rights for all, among other ideas, though the signatories did not think they were making law.