by David Isaac
The justice minister said he wouldn't work with a Supreme Court president appointed "illegally" and "illegitimate" to a vast section of the Israeli public.
 |
Justice Minister Yariv Levin attends a Knesset session, July 24, 2024. Photo by Yonatan Sindel/Flash90. |
Israel’s High Court of Justice on Sunday made good on its Aug. 27 threat to order Justice Minister Yariv Levin to convene the Judicial Selection Committee.
The Supreme Court sits as the High Court when it hears petitions rather than appeals.
According to the unanimous ruling, Levin must release the names of candidates for the bench within 14 days. Forty-five days from their publication, he must call the Judicial Selection Committee to debate on the candidates.
Levin has not convened the Judicial Selection Committee—a combination of Supreme Court judges, government ministers, Knesset members and Israel Bar Association members—for more than a year.
Justice Yael Willner, writing the main opinion in the ruling, said that Levin’s argument that a broad consensus is required before appointing a judge ignores the main purpose of the law—”preventing a situation where there is no permanent Supreme Court president.
“At the current point in time, there is no escaping the statement that the said policy of the minister is against the law,” she said.
Justice Alex Stein seconded Willner’s opinion, saying, “My colleague’s ruling states, in fact, that we are on the verge of the systemic paralysis of this court, and even of the entire judicial system, due to the absence of the head of the system: a permanent Supreme Court president.”
Currently heading the Supreme Court is acting President Uzi Fogelman, who will retire when he reaches the mandatory retirement age for judges of 70 on Oct. 6, after which the court will for the first time be without a president or acting president.
Levin blasted the court ruling: “The order, in contradiction to the express [text of the] law and given in the face of a serious conflict of interest, constitutes a forceful takeover of the Judicial Selection Committee and the usurpation of the minister’s powers contrary to the law.”
Levin indicated he wouldn’t work with a judge chosen without his cooperation and in what he considered an illegal manner. “The president of the Supreme Court, who is appointed improperly and by force, brings to new depths the declining trust in the court,” he said.
“I cannot work with a president who was appointed illegally by his associates, and who is illegitimate in the eyes of a vast public,” Levin added.
Judicial dictatorship?
Reaction to the ruling fell along political and party lines.
Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi of the Likud Party joined Levin, posting to X: “The law states that the authority rests with the minister of justice. Any attempt to take this authority away from him by brute force is illegal and must be annulled.”
Karhi said the justices make up laws to suit themselves. “They have no law. They have no check and balances. In any case, it is forbidden to cooperate with them. This is against the law. Stop the judicial dictatorship.”
MK Simcha Rothman of the Religious Zionism Party, a key player in the judicial reform effort as head of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, said that the law purposefully put the Judicial Selection Committee in the hands of the justice minister to ensure that the public and elected officials would control the process of appointing judges.
“This is the mandate of the legislature, and in a country of law, everyone must obey the law, including the court,” Rothman said.
National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, leader of the Otzma Yehudit Party, said the judges’ decision is “tainted by a serious conflict of interests” and points to the “urgent need to bring back judicial reform.”
Speaking in defense of the court, opposition leader Yair Lapid, head of the Yesh Atid Party, said, “Levin’s political revolution led the country to disaster on October 7. He must immediately convene the committee. Without the rule of law—we will not have a country.”
National Unity Party head Benny Gantz said the delay in appointing a Supreme Court president never should have happened.
“The responsibility for not dragging Israel into a constitutional crisis in general, and during war in particular, rests with the prime minister and he must make sure that the law is respected, and that the High Court ruling is followed,” he said.
“If the minister of justice thinks that this is the time for wars over the seniority system instead of against Hamas—this indicates a poor order of priorities,” Gantz added.
Knesset member Karine Elharrar of Yesh Atid, who sits on the selection committee, tweeted: “Levin got what he wanted—pushing the High Court to rule on the matter of the Supreme Court president. Now the minister will complain that their foot was on his neck, when in practice he is the one who caused the constitutional crisis while paying lip service to ‘unity’ and ‘compromise.'”
One of the few tools left
Faced with the collapse of the government’s judicial reform effort, which he spearheaded, Levin found himself virtually bereft of influence over the High Court, which observers say has grown stronger in the wake of the reform’s failure.
One of the few tools left to Levin was the power to convene the Judicial Selection Committee, which according to the law is at the sole discretion of the justice minister.
To express his displeasure at the way judges are selected, which critics say is self-selecting given their de facto majority on the committee, Levin refused to convene it.
It allowed him to also express his dissatisfaction with the seniority system, whereby by custom the most senior judge is automatically promoted to president, and to vent his displeasure with the next president in line—Isaac Amit, considered one of the most activist judges on the bench.
Last month, Levin offered a compromise proposal whereby Justice Yosef Elron, considered a conservative, would be appointed as chief justice for one year until October 2025, following which Amit would serve for the next three years.
Fogelman rejected the compromise, arguing the seniority system protects the court’s independence and prevents its politicization.
It is clear that once convened, the justices will enjoy a majority on the committee. On the conservative side stand Levin, Minister of National Missions Orit Strook and MK Yitzhak Kroizer.
On the left-wing activists’ side are Elharrar, Fogelman, Justice Noam Sohlberg, Justice Daphne Barak-Erez and Israel Bar Association attorneys Yonit Calmanovich and Muhamad Naamneh.
According to reports, Levin is considering blitz legislation in the Knesset to change the judicial voting requirements from a simple majority to a supermajority of seven of nine. The move would take place before the committee meets and would prevent the election of Amit, observers say.
Left-wing pundits have pointed to the fact that three conservative judges appointed by then-Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked voted in favor of demanding the committee be called—Willner, Stein and Ofer Grosskopf.
Conservative observers have argued that it
points to the failure of Shaked’s method of bringing about reform
through the gradual appointment of conservative judges.
David Isaac
Source: https://www.jns.org/reaction-along-party-lines-after-high-court-issues-levin-ultimatum/
No comments:
Post a Comment