On Tuesday, the High Court rejected the government’s request for an adjournment of hearings on the legality of the “reasonable” law passed by the government last month, citing the large trial panels and time constraints that the court must take into account.
Last week, government representative Ilan Bombach requested a three-week extension so the accused could fully prepare.
However, all defendants except the attorney general were given a three-day extension to submit their responses to the stand, with the deadline now set for September 6. The court also accepted Bambach’s request to move a hearing scheduled for Sept. 12 to 8:30 a.m. to consider his son’s wedding that night.
Religious Zionist lawmaker Simcha Rothman, who chairs the Knesset’s Constitution, Law and Judiciary Committee and was a key architect of judicial reform, said the court’s decision to deny the extension was a need to limit its powers Another example.
“The High Court knows no bounds,” he tweeted. “I had hoped that the High Court was not deliberately trying to create a constitutional crisis as part of its effort to maintain an excessive power war at the expense of the future The price of pulling the Israeli state into paralysis.”
“That turned out to be an utterly naive idea,” he wrote, adding: “In a democracy, a government agency without limits is forbidden.”
Time is of the essence for the court, as President Esther Hayut and Judge Anat Baron plan to retire in mid-October ruling in the case in question, but only a few months away). With the issue of appointing new judges at the heart of the government’s reform efforts, and Justice Minister Yariv Levin refusing to convene the National Judicial Selection Commission in its current form, there is currently no prospect of any being appointed to replace them.
Faced with the very real prospect of the judiciary and administration questioning the rules of the game by which they operate, judges are determined to reject delays that could leave the issue unresolved when Hajut leaves office, and Hajut has spoken out against judicial reform.
In the opposition, lawmakers accused the government of seeking an extension for precisely that purpose.
In requesting an extension, Bambach cited the need for extensive preparations for this crucial case.
“These petitions deal with historical, jurisprudential and dogmatic issues and are of such magnitude that they may lack precedent in the history of the High Court and other authorities. They may have no precedent in the entire Western world,” Bambach’s plea said. His plea continues “The implications of the outcome of this process are significant and far-reaching,” said.
Her disagreement with the government over the law led to Gali Baharav-Miara’s decision to allow the government to seek outside legal counsel. The law was passed by the Knesset on July 24 despite strong opposition and months of mass protests. She is expected to recommend that the court strike down the law, which one of her deputies last month called “extreme” and warned of the potential for “very serious injury” and “multi-system damage”.
She has been in frequent disputes with the government, some of whose members have called for her to be fired. She has opposed other legislation before the high court, including asking the bench to order Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to recuse herself during an ongoing criminal trial.
The “reasonableness” law is an amendment to Basic Law: Judiciary, which prohibits all courts, including the Supreme Court, from using “reasonableness” to review and potentially overturn government and ministerial decisions. It is the first major law passed in the government’s wide-ranging judicial reform program.
The court is preparing to review the controversial law for the first time with a full 15-judge panel. The courts have never repealed the Basic Law.
The ruling coalition sees the amendment as crucial to curb what it sees as overactive courts interfering in government decision-making, while the opposition sees the “reasonableness” standard as a key tool to protect certain rights and the independence of law enforcement officials.
Last week, the high court issued a procedural injunction requiring the government to explain why it believed the court should strike down a petition against the law. The court stressed that the move was made “for efficiency purposes only” and did not reflect its position.
Repealing the quasi-constitutional Basic Law would be an unprecedented judicial review of the constituent powers of the Knesset. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declined to say whether his government would abide by such a ruling.