by Douglas Altabef
The Supreme Court has failed the most basic test of judiciousness, showing itself to be rash, tone-deaf, and ultimately unaccountable.
 |
It is often said that wrongdoers ultimately trip themselves up. In that spirit, we have just seen a prime display of self-revelatory guilt with our Supreme Court’s handling, or rather, non-handling of the elevation of Justice Isaac Amit to president of the court.
Traditionally, the succession to the presidency of the court, a position of great discretion and influence, is determined by seniority. Thus, Amit was in line for the appointment.
However, something not at all funny happened on the way to the forum: Charges of conflict of interest were raised in the handling of various business and even judicial matters concerning Amit.
There were multiple charges that he heard cases involving lawyers who were representing him in other private familial matters, and even heard a case in which his own brother had an interest.
Amit did not apprise his fellow jurists of any of his involvement with these matters, let alone seek to either recuse himself or to receive approbation from his fellow jurists.
What emerges is a pattern of arrogant disregard for the avoidance of conflicts of interest. In what must be seen as a self-revealing awareness of something amiss, Justice Amit appears as “Mr. Goldfriend,” his name before he changed it, in cases where he has a private interest or involvement.
In the real world, when someone goes to such lengths, there has to be some kind of awareness of something amiss. As current US Sen. Adam Schiff of California said back in 2020, you don’t pardon innocent people. Similarly, you don’t have to use an alias if you are doing everything by the book.
The idea that Justice Amit engaged in no criminality is completely beside the point. By virtue of his position, complete probity is an absolute, unshakeable, and non-negotiable requirement.
Justice Amit has fallen far short of that standard.
BUT WHAT is even more troubling than what Amit did is the reaction or rather the non-reaction of his peers and others in the judicial establishment. Where was the outcry or even the questioning of his fellow justices?
One would have thought that, in the interest of protecting the integrity of the court, other justices would have urged a pause in the process of elevating Amit, so that the charges could have been investigated. Such a pause would have enabled the air to be cleared, or not.
Regardless, given the obsessive concern with the need to constantly examine and investigate the prime minister, there should have been a commensurate concern for the actions of someone set to occupy a position of comparable importance and significance.
Yet, our attorney-general, a divisive figure in her own right, was very quick to say, “No problem here, folks.” She declared that no investigation was required. Why, we do not know, other than to assume that she is beholden to the court and she cannot abide Justice Minister Yariv Levin, who has been appropriately adamant that Amit’s case be investigated.
In a saner, more balanced and self-limiting environment, this matter would have been handled very differently. A truly judicious judiciary would have immediately sought to ensure that the air was cleansed, that no taint nor question could attach to the actions of those standing at the pinnacle of probity and rectitude in our country.
Remember, we are talking about a court that has arrogated to itself almost superhuman responsibility: It has determined that it can apply its own standards of judgment, substituting its own reason and assessment of legislation for the intentions of the legislators themselves.
This is a body that will hear and opine as to anything it sees fit, brought to it by anyone it chooses to entertain.
Precisely because it has unabashedly accrued such great power and discretion unto itself, the flip side should naturally follow, and that flip side is strict accountability.
The fact that no one on the court, that the attorney-general, that the Bar Committee, that no one has stood up to say, “wait,” is a telling and a damning reality.
Politicization of the Supreme Court
Quite simply, the Supreme Court has allowed itself to be viewed as yet another political player, interested in preserving the perquisites of its power. It has willingly and unashamedly lowered itself, trading in on its great and irreplaceable asset: integrity.
Only the most biased and partisan defender of the court can view all of this without cringing. I predict that for most Israelis the Amit affair will stand as a seminal event, a Rubicon that the court itself has crossed, a self-inflicted wound that will have the effect of subjecting the court to greater scrutiny and criticism.
“From the great more is expected” is a pillar of Jewish ethics. The Supreme Court has held itself out to be great, to be the ultimate arbiter of decency and democracy and all things proper in Israel. Yet it has failed the most basic test of judiciousness, showing itself to be rash, tone-deaf, and ultimately unaccountable.
The citizens of Israel might not be steeped in the intricacies of judicial interpretation, but they know hypocrisy when they see it, and Israel has just witnessed breathtaking hypocrisy.
Douglas Altabef is the chairman of the board of Im Tirtzu and a director of the Israel Independence Fund.
Source: https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-839819
No comments:
Post a Comment