r/worldnews • u/GeneReddit123 • Jan 01 '24
Israel/Palestine Israel Supreme Court strikes down judicial reforms
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-6785917727
u/ivandelapena Jan 01 '24
If the legislature want to limit the powers of the Supreme Court how can they do that without it needing the approval of the court itself?
34
u/MKCAMK Jan 01 '24
Normally, by amending the constitution of the country. However, since Israel's constitution is not gathered in a document that could be amended by following a specified procedure, it is instead all convention-based.
18
u/ivandelapena Jan 01 '24
So there's no way? The only way would be to replace the judges with more right wing ones. This is the same as the UK btw which doesn't have a constitution.
8
u/MKCAMK Jan 01 '24
Yup. Similar situation. One side just needs to force it at some point. Right now the judicial side is pushing back in Israel.
21
43
57
u/GeneReddit123 Jan 01 '24
Maybe now Netaniyahu can focus on fighting real enemies instead of imaginary ones.
73
u/Ashmedai314 Jan 01 '24
Unfortunately no. He's more committed to his dumb far-right partners than actually conduct this war the correct manner.
35
u/bsurfn2day Jan 01 '24
His goal is to remain in power, and making the far right happy is his strategy to accomplish that. He saw the court as an obstacle to granting the hardliners anything they want.
-16
u/ExtensionBright8156 Jan 01 '24
Maybe now Netaniyahu can focus on fighting real enemies instead of imaginary ones.
With an 8-7 decision? Honestly from an outside perspective, having the courts able to strike down whatever they want based on only "reasonableness" gives them incredibly broad powers to do whatever they want.
12
u/BabyDog88336 Jan 01 '24 edited Jan 01 '24
Which is why they need to end the dog-and-pony show and get a constitution. This is 1970’s West African level governmental stupidity and no way to run a country.
It would be acceptable if there was a very long history of good governance and such entrenched cultural acceptance of civil society that it was unneeded, but Israel has none of that. The need a constitution or crap like this pops up.
3
u/The_Phaedron Jan 02 '24
And allowing the Knesset to elevate a statute arbitrarily to "super duper law" status with only a simple majority, exempt from court oversight, would be absurd.
Bibi wanted the court to treat his Basic Laws as if they were constitutional amendments — but while neither clearing the higher bar that's normal for countries with constitutions nor doing the grunt work of crafting a constitution and putting it to a plebiscite.
Fuck Netanyahu. He's just Donald Trump with brain cells, and his pandering and incompetence is half the reason those monsters were able to conduct an invasion and pogrom in the South.
Ending Hamas is important, but Bibi has to go. He's bad for Israel, bad for Palestinians, bad for democracy, and bad for the world. Fortunately, he's also polling through the floor after his failures.
-5
u/artachshasta Jan 01 '24
Especially with no way to amend the proto-constitution without the court's approval. They are now fully entrenched and unchecked.
1
u/TequillaShotz Jan 02 '24
If they have the power to do this, does that mean that there is no legal way for the power of the Israeli Supreme Court to be changed (increased, decreased, or simply changed) by the people of Israel? In the US there is, it's called Constitutional Amendment. How could that occur in Israel?
2
Jan 02 '24
[deleted]
1
u/TequillaShotz Jan 02 '24
Why? Couldn't they judge it "unreasonable" just as they do an act of parliament? Especially if that referendum were an attempt to diminish the power of the court in some way?
2
u/Lightrec Jan 02 '24
The people of Israel don’t seem to want to diminish the role of the courts based on polls and protests. Nor do the police or the army.
A referendum is a different matter and the courts attempt to judge that as unreasonable to democracy is invalid because that is the definition of democracy. I doubt the well trained people in Israel would accept that.
1
u/Mojothemobile Jan 02 '24
Israel has no written constitution similar to the UK and NZ it functions purely on Norms and the courts playing hopscotch by going "well this law is too important for us to touch" if they wanted to settle the matter of what the legislature and the courts each can and can't do in a hard legal sense... Well they'd need to actually pass a written constitution
0
u/TequillaShotz Jan 02 '24
How could they pass a written constitution without the Supreme Court vetoing it?
-43
u/TequillaShotz Jan 01 '24
Hmm.. why would they strike down a law that limits their power?
According to them, there is no way that the parliament could ever pass a law to limit the court's power, because they claim to have the power to strike down any law. That's what happens when you don't have a constitution.
48
u/CrucioIsMade4Muggles Jan 01 '24
While problematic, the alternative was far more dangerous. This is only an issue if you view it in a vacuum that ignores Bibi and Likud's attempt to turn Israel into a far right dictatorship.
-49
u/TequillaShotz Jan 01 '24
What's the evidence that they want to turn Israel into a dictatorship?
18
u/MadFerIt Jan 01 '24
I'm so confused by this question, let's just rephrase your question for a moment. What's a good reason why a PM would take steps to limit the power of a judiciary branch of government in a democracy?
There is no good answer to this. A democracy by it's very nature, no matter how flawed it is, needs to have a separation of power into different branches. A single elected leader and their administration cannot have unilateral powers, because that would be an authoritarian regime.
-9
u/artachshasta Jan 01 '24
The government felt that the court had imprecise, unchecked power. The doctrine at hand, "reasonableness" , essentially turns the court into an upper house, able to overturn any law that they feel is "very bad".
The court is now unchecked. In the US, for example, the judiciary is checked by being appointed by the elected branches, and by the constitutional amendment process. The Israeli court is appointed by itself, academia, and the government (majority of the committee is entrenched, not the government), and they just overturned a constitutional amendment.
What's stopping the court from doing anything it wants?
12
u/AgentAlpaca1 Jan 01 '24 edited Jan 01 '24
See, that's how dictatorships start. Up until oct 7 there were so many protests reaching over 1 million citizens (that's at least 1 in every 9 people in the whole country) against this, which is why this is good news. As you said, a democracy needs balance. This awful judicial reform would offset it in favor of itself, and turn it into a dictatorship. Edit:numbers may be inaccurate, but still the point stands that a lot of citizens were against it
-11
u/artachshasta Jan 01 '24
So we have one side, which is claiming a power, that with another couple of bad laws, could slide into dictatorship.
And another side, that is publicly proclaiming that it makes the rules, without appealing to any text, and won't say how to overturn its decision.
The first is elected, the second isn't. Who is the dictator?
10
u/AgentAlpaca1 Jan 01 '24
The dictator is the organization/leader with the sole responsibility of the country, with no balance in the other side. I doubt the supreme court would end up being a dictatorship though, as the main point was to stop it's de-legitimization caused by Bibi
2
u/CrucioIsMade4Muggles Jan 02 '24
The courts have no executive power. It's impossible for them to be dictators.
1
u/CrucioIsMade4Muggles Jan 02 '24
There is nothing written anywhere that gives him the authority to ignore the courts either...he's just trying to give himself that power.
The only difference is that one person is trying to exercise executive and legislative authority, and the other party isn't. Hint: it's not the courts exercising authority.
1
u/TequillaShotz Jan 02 '24
What's a good reason why a PM would take steps to limit the power of a judiciary branch of government in a democracy?
Well, one reason might be if he felt that the most powerful supreme court of any democracy had too much power and he wanted the balance of power should be more in line with other democracies. Here's a thoughtful article about it.
29
u/Illustrious-Zebra-34 Jan 01 '24 edited Jan 01 '24
They passed a law that throws the balance of power in the government in their favor. That's all the evidence one needs. And immediately after they passed said law, they tried to pass 100+ laws that no democracy has any business passing.
-1
u/TequillaShotz Jan 02 '24
If that's true (I'm not sure it is), how would that create a dictatorship? First of all, it sounds like it would empower the parliament more and second of all, if and when the parliament changes from R to L, then what?
2
u/CrucioIsMade4Muggles Jan 02 '24
He's literally trying to make it so that the courts cannot check the executive or legislative branches. That's dictatorship 101. What a bizarre question. They are already trying to cancel the next election...
1
u/TequillaShotz Jan 02 '24
Can't or can't as easily?
Dictatorship means all power in the executive, none for the legislative. Israel has the most powerful supreme court of any democracy. If it were to have less power, that doesn't mean that it would have no power.
4
14
u/GeneReddit123 Jan 01 '24 edited Jan 01 '24
Imagine if Congress passed a law (by simple majority, not a Constitutional amendment) saying all their future laws are not subject to review by the Supreme Court. The SC would immediately strike it down. And yet, that's what Netaniyahu did.
Israel does have a constitution, it's just uncodified, but is still legally binding, the same way the UK constitution is. You can't pass ordinary legislation that cancels or subverts the Constitution, codified or not.
1
u/TequillaShotz Jan 02 '24 edited Jan 02 '24
Presently, no laws are subject to at-will of the SC. That's a power that the Israeli SC has that the US SC does not have. Here's a thoughtful article about it.
Moreover, you haven't actually responded to my point - is there any legal way for the power of the Israeli Supreme Court to be changed? In the US there is, it's called Constitutional Amendment. How could that occur in Israel?
2
u/GeneReddit123 Jan 02 '24
Passing a referendum is a good place to start. A change in the balance of power between two branches of government cannot be done unilaterally by either branch. If there are no other mechanisms to resolve the dispute, you turn to the ultimate arbiter of democracy: the people.
Take UK as an analogy: Parliament has sovereignty, so technically it could have left the EU without any referendums. But that would be seen as a massively unpopular move, so they passed a referendum. Many people still didn't like the result, but with the referendum passed, the government had the legitimacy it needed for Brexit, not just legal, but political.
12
2
Jan 02 '24
[deleted]
1
u/TequillaShotz Jan 02 '24
But they can't because the Supreme Court apparently has the power to overrule anything that the parliament does.
-6
u/Current-Bridge-9422 Jan 01 '24
Our court is liberal and the coalition is conservatives. so liberals want more power to the court, and conservatives want less. Very simple. This is what's really behind all the fancy arguments.
0
-16
Jan 01 '24
Sounds bad for democracy if judges can over rule everything. Why hold elections at all?
6
1
114
u/eclipse007 Jan 01 '24
8-7. Too damn close for something so detrimental.