R
1. It seems the status of Basic Laws confuses most everyone, but my limited understanding is that the Israeli Supreme Court has held that they should be treated as constitution - like.
2. Just because Israel doesn’t have a real Constitution doesn’t mean that the Parliament should therefore always have the final say, with a 50.1 % majority
3. Democracy is not just majority rule, as it must also include certain sacred minority rights
4. Israel’s democracy differs significantly from all other democracies as it has one parliament ( no Senate, no Provinces ), and therefore doesn’t have the checks on single person rule that others do - especially the US ( famous for the gridlock that your friend Scalia says is the essence of the US system of checks that the framers wanted)
5. In addition to overturning Court decisions the same rationale applies to judge selection - compare to the US where a President nominates for Senate confirmation , often when they are from different parties
6. Finally the problem with these proposals is greatly magnified by the current government with the PM beholden to 3 parties that represent viewpoints that are anathema to a liberal democracy
One more point. I read Bibi’s book. He and his family have made a huge contribution to Israel. He may be Israel’s most important PM ever given his role in the economic transformation, promoting Israeli tech to the world, Abraham Accords and the fact that his view on peace / two states, often vilified, looks like it was correct.
Me
As to your points:
1. Limited understanding is right. How does Israel’s SC get to give various originating laws constitutional status. There’s not any example anywhere of a mature liberal democracy with a judicially created SC. Plus, the court is somehow tied into the AG and they work in tandem to try to engineer results that they want. An example of the SC’s over the top self arrogated power is its recent invalidating a Bibi cabinet pick on the non existent legal ground that it was “unreasonable.” “Unreasonable” is the SC’s judicially created basis for invalidating laws it doesn’t ideologically like.
2. Does lack of a written constitution make it a jump ball as to who should have the final say as to which laws stand? I’d prefer a court that “stayed in its lane” to have that say on the basis of democratically set grounds. But when the unelected court arrogates extra legal power to itself, then the jump ball is between a 3’ unelected group of judges and the 6’ people’s representatives. Right now the reform proposals are working their way through Israeli democracy processes, may well get moderated and will reflect in what they do to the court, democratic processes bringing it back into line.
3. The protection of minority rights will be best be achieved by an effective court whose jurisdiction and limits are redefined to fit with how courts operate under the rule of law in all liberal democracies. VB granted and her good points well made, Canada’s notwithstanding clause represents a compromise between British parliamentary supremacy and US republicanism (not the party.) The reforms now reflect that compromise and, as noted, their final chapter has not yet been written.
4. Your point 4 in Israeli practice is the opposite of what you say. In effect, and as often noted, the splintered party system makes the Israeli theoretical unicameral government in effect multi-cameral to the point of ongoing political instability.
5. In what liberal democracy does the judiciary or a quasi judicial body pick successor or added on judges? Answer: nowhere escort Israel. So among the the points counting against you here are: 1. that; 2. the people’s representatives as against an unelected core of a power centre that has arrogated to itself unprecedented power under any idea of the rule of law as functioning in liberal democracies around the world; and 3. the just mentioned reality of what is in effect a multi-cameral political system.
6. As to 6, I urge you to read this and deal with the arguments made, and as linked to by Whelan here: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-judicial-apocalypse-is-not-upon-us/.
No comments:
Post a Comment