Israel General Discussion: Annus Horribilis

[Upper Canada Tory]

Good of Netanyahu to not back down. He may lose now, but it is better to lose with conviction and courage than to surrender without taking a stand.

Nice to see it confirmed that the modern GOP is actually hostile to democracy.

This proposal is by definition making the judicial process more democratic. Now you can argue that’s a bad thing due to a nature of what a judiciary deals with but please stop with these nonsense talking points .

One of the main problems with Israeli democracy that contribute to the relatively excessive power of the Supreme Court, but at the same time make it justifiable to preserve Israel's liberal democratic system, is the lack of checks and balances in Israel, and by extension, the lack of a constitution. One of the only existing checks and balances in Israel's system is the Supreme Court - without it, Israel would essentially be under the majority rule of a unicameral legislature in a single branch of government. A lot of the debate around this judicial overhaul and override clause ignores this and gives rise to misleading comparisons (such as the fact that Supreme Court judges in the US are confirmed by votes in the House and the Senate or the fact that Canada has a 'notwithstanding clause' in its constitution). 'Democratizing' the judiciary, which is supposed to be an independent branch of government, means nothing when the legislative branch can already legislate (mostly) without the limits of a constitution or other houses or branches of government. If judicial overreach is a problem in Israel, then work on implementing a clear set of checks and balances, or else the unwritten constitution will inevitably be largely left up to the interpretation of the courts.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Good of Netanyahu to not back down. He may lose now, but it is better to lose with conviction and courage than to surrender without taking a stand.

Nice to see it confirmed that the modern GOP is actually hostile to democracy.

This proposal is by definition making the judicial process more democratic. Now you can argue that’s a bad thing due to a nature of what a judiciary deals with but please stop with these nonsense talking points .

One of the main problems with Israeli democracy that contribute to the relatively excessive power of the Supreme Court, but at the same time make it justifiable to preserve Israel's liberal democratic system, is the lack of checks and balances in Israel, and by extension, the lack of a constitution. One of the only existing checks and balances in Israel's system is the Supreme Court - without it, Israel would essentially be under the majority rule of a unicameral legislature in a single branch of government. A lot of the debate around this judicial overhaul and override clause ignores this and gives rise to misleading comparisons (such as the fact that Supreme Court judges in the US are confirmed by votes in the House and the Senate or the fact that Canada has a 'notwithstanding clause' in its constitution). 'Democratizing' the judiciary, which is supposed to be an independent branch of government, means nothing when the legislative branch can already legislate (mostly) without the limits of a constitution or other houses or branches of government. If judicial overreach is a problem in Israel, then work on implementing a clear set of checks and balances, or else the unwritten constitution will inevitably be largely left up to the interpretation of the courts.

Yeah my issue with the current system is without a written constitution, how do you stop the judiciary from basically just interpreting the law however they really want . So some reform I think has to be made , and maybe yes this is a bad reform given the circumstances in Israel but I also think a judiciary should also have checks placed on it .

I would agree that a judiciary should also have checks placed on it, however not as extensive as the ones proposed in Israel's current legislation.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Why is it that the Israeli legislature is legally sovereign? I know very little about the creation of the governmental structures of Israel, but it seems that it was an odd decision to allow a simple legislative majority to make all laws.

It's a heavily modified Westminster system. Including the uncodified constitution!

Emphasis on heavily modified. Israel has a very unusual Westminster-inspired system.

Though I think the parliamentary supremacy stems from the fact that Israel doesn't have a codified constitution. In that situation parliamentary supremacy is normally the assumed system, I would imagine.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Why is it that the Israeli legislature is legally sovereign? I know very little about the creation of the governmental structures of Israel, but it seems that it was an odd decision to allow a simple legislative majority to make all laws.

It's a heavily modified Westminster system. Including the uncodified constitution!

Emphasis on heavily modified. Israel has a very unusual Westminster-inspired system.

Though I think the parliamentary supremacy stems from the fact that Israel doesn't have a codified constitution. In that situation parliamentary supremacy is normally the assumed system, I would imagine.

In my own country, Canada, we pretty much copy and pasted the original Westminster system, except we generally have judicial supremacy over parliamentary supremacy, but even this comes with some asterisks (the Notwithstanding Clause allows legislatures temporarily overrule parts of the Charter for a 5 year period of time).

Israeli liberals essentially want a system of judicial supremacy similar to that of the Canadian or US system, where the Supreme Court has the power to rule on the constitutionality of laws, except without a codified constitution itself, which makes it somewhat of a strange position in Israel's context and likely subject to vague and arbitrary interpretations of Israel's Basic Laws.

Israeli right-wingers, on the other hand, want a system more like the UK and other European countries where parliamentary supremacy is the law of the land and the power of the legislature is less inhibited. In the most literal sense, this is the more democratic system, as however people vote turns out to be the end result, but also may create a 'tyranny of the majority' dynamic, as Israeli liberals don't like the fact that the right, which is currently in power, may choose to impose laws on them they disagree with, such as of a religious nature, for example.

In many ways it reminds of how different democracies work. Australia, Singapore and many countries in Europe have a more collectively imposed view of democracy - if the majority agrees on something, it must be imposed on everyone (compulsory voting in Australia for example). Canada, US and many other more liberal democracies prioritize the rights of the individual.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Regarding the debate between OSR and Parrotguy, I would also challenge the view that the US judiciary is full of partisan hacks. In fact, the plurality of SCOTUS decisions are unanimous.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/28/those-5-4-decisions-on-the-supreme-court-9-0-is-far-more-common/
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-defies-critics-wave-unanimous-decisions/story?id=78463255

[Upper Canada Tory]

Who here is willing to state the pros and cons of this bill? I understand it eliminates the "reasonableness" standard for policy decisions as a vehicle of the Israel high court to invalidare laws and regulations, which I might add would never be accepted in the US as a jurisprudential benchmark for judgement. But terms, and terms of art, might be different in Isreal.

This site should be about providing information, and empowering based on that, and not invective.

I have  dream. I am an idealist. Sue me.

I can attempt to explain the arguments for and against the bill but maybe not in as complete a manner as someone fully steeped in this topic would be able to.

The reasonableness clause is a legal doctrine used by the Israeli High Court of Justice to provide judicial review for executive decisions by the Israeli cabinet. The bill prohibits the court from using this doctrine.

Supporters of the legislation say the reasonableness doctrine is inherently subjective and allows the court to subvert the government's authority, therefore it is not consistent with the rule of law. They say it is up to elected officials, who are chosen by voters, to make government decisions. Earlier this year, a government minister (Aryeh Deri) was removed by the Israeli High Court using this doctrine due to past criminal offences such as bribery and fraud. This was seen as a step too far and it was widely argued that only the PM should decide who is in cabinet and who isn't.

Opponents of the legislation say that the judiciary is the only branch of government that keeps Israel's centralized executive branch in check, due to the lack of a codified constitution. Opponents argue that this could result in some government agencies like law enforcement to have appointments due to political and personal associations and could cause a general increase in corruption. Deri, as an example, had previously promised not to return to public life as a result of a plea bargain. The court ruled that has past criminal offences made it unreasonable for him to serve as a minister in government.

This is my attempt at explaining the arguments for and against the bill. If anyone has anything to add, go right ahead.  

[Upper Canada Tory]

Who here is willing to state the pros and cons of this bill? I understand it eliminates the "reasonableness" standard for policy decisions as a vehicle of the Israel high court to invalidare laws and regulations, which I might add would never be accepted in the US as a jurisprudential benchmark for judgement. But terms, and terms of art, might be different in Isreal.

This site should be about providing information, and empowering based on that, and not invective.

I have a dream. I am an idealist. Sue me.

I will add some context to the dry arguments that have already been presented, which I think is more important. You have the White House, and you have congress, and you have midterms. You don't need the courts to say that some action or other is highly unreasonable, there's enough oversight.

We don't have that. Local government is extremely weak, there is no constitution. When it comes to "dry" government actions that don't deal with overarching themes of human rights, there is literally nothing a 60+1 majority in the Knesset can't do. And as it turns out, Israeli liberals aren't really interested in living in a country where corruption and nepotism slowly destroys our public services. We also don't want to live in a country where the government can fire the attorney general and appoint a sycophant who will cancel bibi's trial. We want someone to have oversight over the coalition, and outside of the courts there is no one who can do it.

This is probably the main issue that is causing the current constitutional crisis in Israel in the first place. The lack of a codified constitution and/or an upper house to be a check on the legislature, or even the centralized government with few checks and balances overall. This is possibly the core issue that needs to be solved, IMO.