Israel Judicial Reform Opponents Unreasonable

On Monday, the Israeli Knesset passed a highly controversial bill stripping the Israeli supreme court of its ability to strike down certain laws on the basis of “reasonableness.” Some background: Because Israel has no written constitution, the Israeli supreme court is not comparable to any other judiciary in the Western world. Its justices are appointed by a nine-member selection committee that includes three current justices, along with Knesset members, cabinet ministers, and members of the Israeli bar association. A seven-vote majority is needed to approve appointments. The justices, then, have an effective veto over any candidate whose judicial philosophy differs from their own. (A unified three-justice opposition is enough to stop any candidate.) And when colleagues arrive on the bench, they are at liberty to apply the comically vague “reasonableness” doctrine to enforce their own policy positions on the country, given that there is no body of constitutional law to be followed. All in all, the system is an embarrassment for a democratic country.

The system is supported by leftists for the simple reason that it produces leftist outcomes. In 2014, for example, the court struck down a law that limited vehicle owners from receiving income-support payments from the National Insurance Institute. The decision reads: “This is an extremely serious violation of the core of the right of someone who, in any case, is at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder and needs the benefit as the last safety net against starvation and poverty.” Does that sound like a legal argument, or a policy one?

About the Author

Natan Ehrenreich

Natan Ehrenreich, a recent graduate of Yeshiva University, is a writing fellow at National Review.

Featured Tags

Manage following

Israel

Benjamin Netanyahu

On Monday, the Israeli Knesset passed a highly controversial bill stripping the Israeli supreme court of its ability to strike down certain laws on the basis of “reasonableness.” Some background: Because Israel has no written constitution, the Israeli supreme court is not comparable to any other judiciary in the Western world. Its justices are appointed by a nine-member selection committee that includes three current justices, along with Knesset members, cabinet ministers, and members of the Israeli bar association. A seven-vote majority is needed to approve appointments. The justices, then, have an effective veto over any candidate whose judicial philosophy differs from their own. (A unified three-justice opposition is enough to stop any candidate.) And when colleagues arrive on the bench, they are at liberty to apply the comically vague “reasonableness” doctrine to enforce their own policy positions on the country, given that there is no body of constitutional law to be followed. All in all, the system is an embarrassment for a democratic country.

The system is supported by leftists for the simple reason that it produces leftist outcomes. In 2014, for example, the court struck down a law that limited vehicle owners from receiving income-support payments from the National Insurance Institute. The decision reads: “This is an extremely serious violation of the core of the right of someone who, in any case, is at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder and needs the benefit as the last safety net against starvation and poverty.” Does that sound like a legal argument, or a policy one?