Israeli Parliament Passes Law Limiting the Power of the Judiciary {struck down 1 Jan 2024}

Politics & Elections
43

Wow, a lot of left-wing parrotting here. I’m going to try to offer a different perspective. I’d also love for Alessan to check in, because I’d appreciate a first-hand Israeli perspective. But there’s a lot of disinformation being repeated up above.

First and foremost, what people in the USA need to understand is that in Israel, the Supreme Court does not have any practical “checks” on its power. In the USA, the Supreme Court is constrained by a textual Constitution and its role is limited to ruling on cases brought before it that have a Constitutional question behind them. If the court strikes down a law passed by the legislature, there are legislative remedy to that - pass a Consitutional Amendment, or pass another law that does not violate the Constitution. That is not true of the Israeli Supreme Court. There is no genuine constitution, there is merely the court justices’ idea of what’s “reasonable”. Essentially, if the court decides they don’t agree with the Knesset, they can simply void the law, and there is no recourse.

Secondly, do not be misled into thinking that the idea of limiting the Supreme Court’s ability to strike down laws based on “reasonableness” is particularly a right wing opinion in Israel. In fact, until this current government actually attempted to enact it, the voices to curb that power came from both political sides. The appearance that this is a push for right wing power is due purely to opponents of Bibi Netanyahu personally - sour-grapes losers like Bennet and Gantz and Ehud Barak - pushing that narrative, and useful idiots like Biden repeating it.

Democracy very much requires checks and balances. Right now, there IS NO CHECK ON THE JUDICIARY. This is the part that you don’t hear in the media, especially not in the American media.

Yes, there have been large protests against the reform. There have also been large counter-protests in favor of the reform, but those are hardly mentioned in the American media. Not to mention that the ruling bloc in the Knesset was legitimately and freely elected, so clearly the anti-reform side is in the minority, based on votes, regardless of who can turn out street protesters.

Finally, this bit of falsity needs to be called out:

There absolutely WAS a delay. The ruling coalition suspended the vote on this law for months (it was originally meant to have taken place back in April) and accepted President Herzog’s offer to mediate some sort of compromise. The bill that was just passed is but one aspect of the more sweeping law that was originally proposed, due to acceptance of the delay. However, the opposition refused any compromise whatsoever, so the coalition has gone ahead and passed their laws with no opposition input, because they offered none other than “don’t do it.”

Also, what makes you think that laws passed by a Knesset majority and then struck down by the Supreme Court are unpopular? The Knesset is the branch that is popularly elected. The Supreme Court is the branch that is not.

44

First, in the American Media I’m reading, this has been covered quite well. I don’t love when people conflate “I haven’t seen this” with “It isn’t there.”

Second, this is a fair criticism, but it cuts both ways. An unchecked, ill-defined SC is not worse than an unchecked, unicameral, no-executive veto power house. It’s trading one ill for another, one that I’d argue is marginally worse (at least with the status quo one is overseeing the other; here that’s effectively nullified)

45

The important context you are leaving out is that Netanyahu is using this as the first of several planned “reforms” to increase his own power. The opposition does agree with reforming the judiciary in Israel in principle but also realizes that Netanyahu won’t stop at this and that the best opportunity to stop a power grab given he isn’t willing to commit to stop future legislation is to fight this bill now.

46

I agree popularity is relative.

I acknowledge my opinions come from reading mainstream media, and that this is not always accurate or complete. However, I consider myself moderate. Which inaccuracies do you think exist in the following article, below, which comes from a source I trust and seems typical?

These articles do suggest the Court has been interventionalist, but are less descriptive about specific cases or a detailed list of how different groups feel about this, apart from simple poles. Certainly I am unaware of what checks exist on the judiciary. It is hard to believe there are no checks, since they do not write law and are presumably sensitive to public opinion. They can void law without recourse, not even saying why it was voided and offering legislators a chance to reword things?

In Canada, the argument for the “notwithstanding clause” in our Constitution, allowing regional governments limited opportunities to circumvent it, has been justified by similar arguments (the legislature is elected, judges are not). Its use has not been encouraging.

I do wish to thank you for offering a different perspective. I am sure many people support the changes. That does not necessarily make them wise.

47

First of all, the legislature is not unchecked - at the very least, the ruling coalition is always subject to votes of no confidence and/or periodic elections. There is also the Judiciary acting as a check using grounds other than subjective “reasonableness” to strike down laws that conflict with the basic principles of the country (although how to define this in the absence of a constitution is an open question. There are “Basic Laws” which are treated as some sort of nascent Constitution, but the Supreme Court could strike those down as well at this point.)

Second of all, why is it just as bad or even worse for the elected branch of the government to be unchecked (in theory, as I said above, checks would still exist) than for the non-elected branch to be unchecked? I would think that if that’s truly a binary choice, that the branch that represents the will of the people would be the better one to be unchecked.

In other words, it’s as I said - this isn’t a “far right” thing, it’s something that in principle is agree upon by non-right-wingers, but personal distrust/hatred of Netanyahu by those who have opposed him is more important than giving Israelis what even they agree is a better system of government. I don’t know about you, but that’s not a group that I’d side with.

Unfortunately, I am unable to see most of the article. But what I was able to see before the paywall said an interesting thing: “Opponents of the reform argue that they will undermine democracy and risk introducing majoritarian rule.” Hello? Isn’t democracy by definition “majoritarian rule”? Even in systems with genuinely complementary checks and balances like the USA, every branch is elected or selected by majorities of some sort.

48

That’s simply inadequate. Any legislative body that relies on future votes to be checked is just an abuse waiting to happen. Things like suspending elections are in the Intro to Taking over Any Country manual.

Precisely- because without the SC, what stops the Knesset from striking them down?

And I think it’s a distinction without a difference. Any governing organ which cannot be checked can too easily take absolute power for itself.

Look, I’m not arguing that a “reasonableness” standard isn’t subjective and stupid. I’m arguing that the Knesset is trading one stupid situation for another, and as I said, marginally worse.

Here’s an idea: Tell the religious whackadoos to stuff it* and put a constitution in place. It’s been 70 years fer crissake, and this is the stupid prize you get.

*My understanding is that the problem is the Haredi think that this is an affront to god, as the Torah outlines all the fundamental rights and any man-made construct will be inferior to what god hath wrought.

49

I will summarize the article from the Economist (given at the above link, which seems paywalled. Regrets.)

On July 24th Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, passed the first in a series of laws aimed at drastically limiting the powers of the country’s Supreme Court. Members of the opposition walked out in protest at the final reading of the law, which passed 64-0 in the 120-strong chamber… The law all but eliminates the court’s ability to overturn government decisions on the grounds of “reasonableness”. Since the coalition presented its plans nearly eight months ago, hundreds of thousands of Israelis have [taken to the streets] in protest. Mr Netanyahu’s allies claim that in recent decades the Supreme Court has been too interventionist and that its powers should be curbed.

The government has been unmoved. Thousands of reserve officers in Israel’s armed forces… and Biden [have expressed displeasure.]. After attempts to pass the full raft of his government’s legal reforms stalled in the face of widespread opposition, Mr Netanyahu [was unable to gain consensus for constitutional changes]. Instead the government took one of the original four laws they had hoped to pass earlier this year and rushed a vote on that through the Knesset…

…Mr Netanyahu and his relatively moderate defence minister, Yoav Gallant [tried to delay in an attempt to find compromise]… Mr Levin and other far-right members of the coalition threatened to resign if the amendment was not passed immediately.…. Mr Netanyahu… was unable to persuade his allies to delay the vote suggests that his power is now limited. It is unclear what will prevent the most extreme members of the coalition of nationalist and ultra-religious parties from pursuing their political agenda, both on the legal reforms and more widely… [and if one might] revisit the corruption charges currently facing Mr Netanyahu (which he strenuously denies).

…When the Knesset returns… [it plans changes] which would give it control of the appointment of Supreme Court judges… Israel may find itself in a constitutional crisis within days, well before the next pieces of legislation come up… The judges will still have legal tools to review government decisions, but these will be much more limited. If they rule that this new law restricting their powers is unconstitutional, they will be on a collision course with the government… Major business groups have already closed their establishments in protest and the trade unions are considering a general strike. Angry protests broke out following the vote, causing havoc in central Jerusalem [and] Tel Aviv…

50

This would solve most of Israel’s problems. Unfortunately, they are a very powerful and reliable voting block.

51

ISTM that this is the greatest existential threat Israel has ever faced.

The Far Right may succeed in turning Israel into the theocracy they desire but an Israel that drives out its secular population loses its economic and even its military power.

Even if @cmkeller’s take was correct (which I do not buy) it is moot. The secular portion of Israel strongly sees it otherwise and they may, I suspect will, vote with their feet.

52

Not the first nor greatest.

53

I assume you mean post-1948 Israel, because before then they’ve had a problem or two that rank pretty high.

54

Or, as the New York Times puts it… (excerpt link below)

…the Israeli Knesset’s voted to approve contentious legislation limiting the power of the judiciary. This is a true disaster for Israel not because the bill is “anti-democratic” — if anything, it is all too democratic, at least in the purely majoritarian sense of the word — but because it risks depriving the country of its most potent weapon: the fierce loyalty of its most productive and civically engaged citizens… the tech entrepreneurs, the air force reservists, the world-famous novelists and doctors…

That’s why the particulars of the legislation matter less than the way it was carried out and the motives of those who championed it. For the most part, they represent Israel’s least productive and engaged citizens — ultra-Orthodox Jews who want military exemptions and welfare, settlers who want to be a law unto themselves, ideologues in think tanks — abusing their temporary majority to secure exemptions, entitlements, immunities and other privileges that mock the idea of equality under law.

That’s not to say that the idea of judicial reform is meritless, at least in the abstract. Israel has an unusually powerful judiciary that over several decades arrogated powers to itself that were never democratically given and that elsewhere are considered strictly political, such as adjudging the “reasonableness” of ministerial appointments and actions. The doctrine of “reasonableness” was the subject of Monday’s legislation.

At the same time, Israel has no written constitution clearly delineating, as America’s does, the separation of powers. And it has no meaningful institutional check on the executive and legislature other than the Supreme Court. It is the court that guarantees that human, civil, women’s and minority rights are respected and that parliamentary majorities can’t simply do as they please.

55

I would suggest that this would be better worded as:
“[T]hat this is the greatest existential threat that Israel’s democracy has ever faced.”

Israel as a nation has, of course, faced several existential threats.

56

“Democracy” has become the political equivalent of a religious talisman for many people. For many, many people, it’s gotten to the point where everything that they define as anti-democracy is automatically bad, and everything that they define as pro-democracy is automatically good – even though they very clearly don’t even understand what “democracy” even means. They apparently, as far as I can tell, take the word to mean whatever the current system is that they live under, regardless of the features of that system.

57

Please explain how reigning in the power of an unelected body can be a threat to democracy.
Wouldn’t it in fact be the opposite? Wouldn’t the fact that the people’s elected representatives are taking a more active role for themselves be an enhancement of democracy?

58

I will grant pre ‘48 but no, not just a threat to Israeli democracy, an actual existential threat.

Israel as a theocracy in my opinion becomes a failed state. It collapses. Economically. Militarily. Israel was under threats from war but I I see this path as a higher chance of destroying the country than any war since ‘48.

I say this as someone who has self-described as a Zionist for as long as I can remember (albeit one often critical of different government actions and policies) … I won’t mourn the loss of an Israeli theocracy. I will the loss of Israel the flawed democracy, but once that is gone? No tears will be shed by me.

59

Nor does it help the theocrats’ cause that the ultra-religious refuse all military serve. Bunch of jerkwads who want other people to do their fighting for them and protect them even as they despite the people doing the bleeding an dying on their behalf.

Well, sure - it’s not like Jews haven’t spend the better part of two millennia wandering. The Israeli nationalists like to think Israel is the be-all end-all for all Jews and that all Jews want to live there, and probably think that they can just gather them all in they can make them change their minds and be good little subjects to the new leader(s). Not at all true, though.

Unfortunately, the fundamentalist Christians in the US also believe all the Jews should go live in Israel, but that’s largely because their myth of the end of the world requires that there be an Israel to become cannon fodder in their fantasies of destruction.

Funny, though - the more liberal and secular Jews don’t want to play that game. Jews live other places in the world besides Israel, and don’t have to put up with so many suicide bombers or the Heredi trying to dictate their lives.

60

If the elected leaders are taking actions to increase their power and possible prolong it indefinitely without regard to the welfare of the nation at large no, that’s not an enhancement.

Possible abuse of power/wrongdoing by elected representatives is why there’s an impeachment/removal option in the US, and recall elections for officials. Sometimes the “duly elected” person turns out to be a mistake or corrupt.

The US Supreme Court is not elected either - they’re appointed (and approved). That’s intended to keep them apolitical (which, like everything else in government, imperfectly). Then again, the US has written rules creating checks and balances for all parts of the government. Israel does not.

61

Over in Right Wing USA they are lauding this.

What’s really disturbing is that they are happy only because it’s a right-wing government gaining over a more liberal court. They really don’t understand that it could just as easily be a right wing ox being gored.

How is this lost on people?

62

Doesn’t seem all that hard - all the Israelis protesting in the streets get it. Maybe if you paid attention to what they’ve been saying you’d understand why this move by Bibi is so dangerous.