Judicial Reform Gets a Plug from a High Court Justice
Not intentionally, of course. And not from a justice of the Israeli Supreme Court.
Consider the following [with very minor edits in brackets]:
At the behest of a party that has suffered no injury, the majority decides a contested public policy issue properly belonging to the politically accountable branches and the people they represent…That is a major problem not just for governance, but for democracy too. [The legislature] is of course a democratic institution; it responds, even if imperfectly, to the preferences of…voters. And agency officials, though not themselves elected, serve a [Chief Executive] with the broadest of all political constituencies. But this Court? It is, by design, as detached as possible from the body politic. That is why the Court is supposed to stick to its business — to decide only cases and controversies, and to stay away from making this Nation’s policy about subjects like [ ]…The court exercises authority it does not have.
These lines were written by Justice Elana Kagan, in her dissent from the USSC’s 6-3 decision that put the kibosh on President Bidens’ plan to dismiss billions in student loan indebtedness through executive order, i.e. without the approval of Congress. Close your eyes and imagine the same words applied to Israel’s High Court. They could have been written by Simcha Rothman or Yariv Levin, two champions of judicial reform, who collectively are seen as The Great Satan by the Israeli left.
Of course, in the US, Elana Kagan is one of the voices of the left on the Court. Which makes the issue of restraints of the judicial confusing. Is it good in the US, but a threat to democracy in Israel?
It must be, since President Biden has reiterated his objection to meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu so long as he persists in his assault on Israeli democracy.
Go figure.
It all depends on whose ox is being gored In Israel the HCJ and its self selected members protects the interests of the secular Ashkenazi elite and intervenes in areas where it has zero expertise such as in Halachic mattes and matters of nation ask security because as enunciated by Aharon Barak it represents the enlightened experts against the excesses of majority rule Judges Posner and Bork considered such as judicial legislation as opposed to deciding cases
Have you given behinot to the various justices including the dati ones to be able to evaluate their halakhic competence? Besides, often the questions they consider are meta-halakhic and do not require halakhic competence.
The supreme court system is not perfect and requires changes, a point I make below.
As I once told a “Dati” judge (in Israel), and as I emphasize in every shiur and lecture on this topic – just like there are no mechaleley shabat who can be called truly Dati, and no okhlei nevolot ve’trefot le’te’avon who can be truly called Dati, and no thieves who can be truly called Dati, Kal Vakhomer that judges in the anti-Torah system can not be truly called Dati. (Iknow the fairy tales and stories about this judge and that Gadol etc. They have no Halalkhic relevance)
rkz, are you God’s designated arbiter? I doubt you would consider me dati either. Nonetheless, you have branded tzaddikim both past and present based on your biases. You have about 3 months to beg for their forgiveness.
William L Gewirtz,
It has nothing to do with my biases,
AFAIK, that’s the p’sak of all the poskim that wrote about the issue
Please see the short summary in Mikra’ey Kodesh (R. M. Harari), Rosh Hashana, Appendix 8
I stand by the critiques of Judges Posner and Bork who view CJ Barak’s court as a coyrt serving as a self appointed legislature unaccountable to anyone except itself.
The HCJ in terms of the ideology voiced by Barak and his successors is equivalent to a JIm Crow Court of the US in the 1950s-no Sefardim or conservatives on issues of metal halacha defense need apply as potential jusges and Barak has ruled on issues where it has no expertise namely meta halachic iosues or issues of national security
Their opinions and public stances on such issues c;learly indicate the view that I mentioned as being the self appointed preservers of the Ashkenazi secular elite and clearly hostile to issues of metahalachic condern and national security with no accountability for their views or decisions.
Judicial reform contains a wide basket of proposals, some reasonable and some not. A better, broader process for SC judge selection is a good thing. A Knesset override of a SC decision by a simple majority is not. The US SC issued a rule in favor of the Legislative branch, not itself. To do what Biden wants requires congressional, not executive action; that is all the 6-3 majority said. It clearly and unequivocally can decide between the other two branches of government. Any comparison from a 2 to a 3-branch system is subject to ambiguity.
Besides Justice Kagan had her Bat Mitzvah in a modern orthodox shul; she is already suspect. 🙂
So Lapid and Gantz should have said, “OK, let’s talk. Drop that and keep this.” And Rothman and Levin have made it clear that that was the plan from day one.
Instead one of Lapid’s MK’s literally vaulted across a table on day and tried to assault Rothman. And Lapid and Gantz took to the streets. Why should they compromise? The system works for them, currently. Why should they have to change a drop?
Gantz and Lapid are OK with Pres. Herzog’s plan. Rothman and Levin do not seem to be. Let’s see how this plays out.
Law is political everywhere.
There is no such thing as an objective truth in man-made law.
I remember that I understood that on my first day in law school (here in Israel. No different anywhere else).
There is no reason that the HC can invalidate a law, and the Knesset can’t overrule it.
Even in the US, which has a written binding and supreme law of the land constitution (Israel doesn’t), it was not a given that the SC can do so.
Agreed-US certainly not anticipated before Marshall’s power grab in 1803 Marbury v Madison. Remember CJ of SC was not considered an important position-John Jay resigned from being CJ in 1795 to run for Governor of NY.
Certainly, in a Parliamentary democracy no excuse of Article 111 giving independent powers to court.
mycroft, rkz, All governing structures need checks and balances to operate democratically. what mycroft calls a power grab, institutionalized that power in the US. An all-powerful Knesset would undermine it.
William L Gewirtz,
See my comment below, why checks and balances are irrelevant to the current minor reform suggested in Israel
This is my comprorise suggestion for reform, sent to the President (through someone who was requested to submit suggestions):
בס”ד
מתווה מוצע לתיקון מערכת המשפט בישראל
ד”ר רועי זק
1. היועץ המשפטי לממשלה.
א. כללי מינוי יועצים משפטיים
1) תפקיד היועמ”ש יופרד לחלוטין מפרקליטות המדינה.
2) כל עורך דין בעל ותק של 5 שנים של עריכת דין, יהיה כשיר להתמנות כיועץ משפטי לממשלה.
3) לא ניתן יהיה למנות כיועץ משפטי לממשלה עורך דין שאיננו מכיר במדינת ישראל כמדינתו של העם היהודי.
4) היועמ”ש ימונה ע”י הממשלה, ותפקידו יהיה משרת אמון. כהונתו תסתיים עם סיום כהונת הממשלה שמינתה אותו.
5) היועצים המשפטיים למשרדי הממשלה השונים ימונו ע”י השרים השונים, כל שר במשרדו. גם תפקידים אלו יהיו משרות אמון. כהונתו של יועמ”ש של משרד מסוים, תסתיים עם סיום כהונת השר שמינה אותו.
6) כל עורך דין בעל ותק של 3 שנים של עריכת דין, יהיה כשיר להתמנות כיועץ משפטי למשרד.
7) לא ניתן יהיה למנות כיועץ משפטי עורך דין שאיננו מכיר במדינת ישראל כמדינתו של העם היהודי.
ב. הגדרת תפקידו של יועץ משפטי
1) חוו”ד של היועמ”ש לממשלה וכן של היועצים המשפטיים במשרדים תהיה חוות דעת מייעצת, ולא תחייב את הממשלה או את השר.
2) כל יועץ משפטי יהיה חייב להגן במלוא יכולתו המקצועית על עמדת הממשלה או השר בפני כל ערכאה משפטית.
3) אם סבורה הממשלה או השר (לפי העניין) כי היועץ המשפטי אינו מייצג אותו כיאות, ניתן יהיה לממשלה או לשר לקבל ייצוג משפטי של עורך דין חיצוני.
2. פרקליטות המדינה
א. כללי מינוי פרקליטים
1) יבוטל תפקיד פרקליט המדינה.
2) פרקליט מחוזי יתמנה ע”י שר המשפטים. המינוי טעון את אישור הכנסת, ברוב של 61 חברי כנסת.
3) כל עורך דין בעל ותק של 3 שנים של עריכת דין, יהיה כשיר להתמנות לפרקליט מחוזי.
4) לא ניתן יהיה למנות כפרקליט מחוזי עורך דין שאיננו מכיר במדינת ישראל כמדינתו של העם היהודי.
5) תפקידו של פרקליט מחוזי יהיה משרת אמון. כהונתו תסתיים עם סיום כהונת שר המשפטים שמינה אותו.
ב. הגדרת תפקידו של פרקליט מחוזי
1) פרקליט מחוזי יהיה מופקד על הגשת כתבי אישום במחוז שתחת אחריותו.
2) ניתן יהיה לערער על החלטתו של פרקליט מחוזי בפני בית משפט המחוזי, בהליך מיוחד.
3) יבוטלו העבירות הבלתי מוגדרות מחוקי המדינה (המרדה, הסתה לגזענות, הפרת אמונים וכד’).
4) יבוטל המעצר המנהלי לאזרחי ישראל המכירים במדינת ישראל כמדינתו של העם היהודי. ישוחררו מיידית כל העצירים המנהליים אזרחי ישראל המכירים במדינת ישראל כמדינתו של העם היהודי.
5) לא ניתן יהיה להסתמך כלל על הודאה של נאשם שהושגה באמצעות עינויים, בין במישרין ובין בעקיפין. ישוחררו מיידית כל המורשעים אזרחי ישראל המכירים במדינת ישראל כמדינתו של העם היהודי, שהרשעתם מבוססת על הודאה שהושגה באמצעות עינויים, בין במישרין ובין בעקיפין.
3. בתי המשפט השלום
א. כללי מינוי שופטי שלום
1) שופט שלום ימונה ע”י שר המשפטים. המינוי טעון את אישור הכנסת, ברוב של 70 חברי כנסת.
2) כל עורך דין בעל ותק של 5 שנים של עריכת דין, יהיה כשיר להתמנות לשופט שלום.
3) לא ניתן יהיה למנות כשופט שלום עורך דין שאיננו מכיר במדינת ישראל כמדינתו של העם היהודי.
4) כהונת שופט שלום תהיה קצובה לעשר שנים, וניתן יהיה לבחור בו לכהונה נוספת, כאמור.
ב. הגדרת תפקידו של בית המשפט השלום
1) בית המשפט השלום יעסוק בתיקים פליליים, על הפרות של החוק הפלילי שעונשן פחות משלוש שנות מאסר.
2) ניתן יהיה לערער על פסק דין של בית המשפט השלום בפני בית משפט המחוזי.
3) בית המשפט השלום לא יהיה מוסמך לעסוק במשפט המנהלי או במשפט החוקתי. אם עולה שאלה מנהלית או חוקתית במסגרת דיון פלילי בבית המשפט השלום, תועבר השאלה לבית המשפט המחוזי או בית המשפט העליון, בהתאם לעניין כמפורט להלן.
4. בתי המשפט המחוזיים
א. כללי מינוי שופטים מחוזיים
1) שופט מחוזי ימונה ע”י שר המשפטים. המינוי טעון את אישור הכנסת, ברוב של 80 חברי כנסת.
2) כל עורך דין בעל ותק של 10 שנים של עריכת דין (כולל שנות כהונה כשופט שלום), יהיה כשיר להתמנות לשופט מחוזי.
3) לא ניתן יהיה למנות כשופט מחוזי עורך דין שאיננו מכיר במדינת ישראל כמדינתו של העם היהודי.
4) כהונת שופט מחוזי תהיה קצובה לעשר שנים, וניתן יהיה לבחור בו לכהונה נוספת, כאמור.
ב. הגדרת תפקידו של בית המשפט המחוזי
1) בית המשפט המחוזי יעסוק בתיקים פליליים, על הפרות של החוק הפלילי שעונשן יותר משלוש שנות מאסר.
2) ניתן יהיה לערער על פסק דין של בית המשפט המחוזי בפני בית משפט העליון.
3) בית המשפט המחוזי יהיה ערכאת ערעור על פסקי דין של בית המשפט השלום.
4) בית המשפט המחוזי יעסוק בעתירות מנהליות נגד רשויות מקומיות, במקרים של שחיתות או של פגיעה בכללי הצדק הטבעי.
5) בית המשפט העליון לא יהיה מוסמך לעסוק בעתירות נגד רבנות מקומית או נגד בית דין רבני מקומי.
6) בית המשפט המחוזי יעסוק בשאלות מנהליות (כאמור בתת סעיף 4) שעלו בהליכים שעלו בהליכים של בית המשפט השלום.
7) עתירה מנהלית תוגש רק ע”י עותר שנפגע ישירות מפעולת הרשות המקומית. לא תהיה זכות עמידה לעותר ציבורי.
8) בית המשפט המחוזי לא יהיה מוסמך לעסוק במשפט החוקתי. אם עולה שאלה חוקתית במסגרת דיון פלילי בבית המשפט המחוזי, תועבר השאלה לבית המשפט העליון, בהתאם לעניין כמפורט להלן.
5. בית המשפט העליון
א. כללי מינוי שופטים לבית המשפט העליון
1) בית המשפט העליון יכלול 15 שופטים.
2) שופט בית המשפט העליון ימונה ע”י שר המשפטים. המינוי טעון את אישור הכנסת, ברוב של 90 חברי כנסת.
3) כל עורך דין בעל ותק של 15 שנים של עריכת דין (כולל שנות כהונה כשופט שלום ו/או מחוזי), יהיה כשיר להתמנות לשופט בבית המשפט העליון.
4) לא ניתן יהיה למנות כשופט בבית המשפט העליון עורך דין שאיננו מכיר במדינת ישראל כמדינתו של העם היהודי.
5) כהונת שופט בבית המשפט העליון תהיה קצובה לחמש עשרה שנים או עד להגיעו לגיל שבעים, לפי המוקדם. לא ניתן יהיה לבחור בו לכהונה נוספת.
ב. הגדרת תפקידו של בית המשפט העליון
1) בית המשפט העליון יהיה ערכאת ערעור לפסקי דין של בית המשפט המחוזי.
2) ניתן יהיה להגיש בקשת רשות ערעור לבית המשפט העליון על פסקי דין של בית המשפט המחוזי שניתנו בשבתו כערכאת ערעור על פסקי בית המשפט השלום.
3) בית המשפט העליון יעסוק בעתירות מנהליות נגד רשויות השלטון המרכזי, במקרים של שחיתות או של פגיעה בכללי הצדק הטבעי.
4) בית המשפט העליון לא יהיה מוסמך לעסוק בעתירות נגד הרבנות הראשית לישראל, בתי הדין הרבניים, או נגד רבנות מקומית.
5) בית המשפט העליון יעסוק בשאלות מנהליות (כאמור בתת סעיף 3) שעלו בהליכים של בית המשפט השלום או של בית המשפט המחוזי.
6) עתירה מנהלית תוגש רק ע”י עותר שנפגע ישירות מפעולת הרשות השלטונית (המקומית או המרכזית, לפי העניין). לא תהיה זכות עמידה לעותר ציבורי.
7) בית המשפט העליון יהיה מוסמך, בהחלטה פה אחד של כל שופטיו, לבטל חוקים שחוקקה הכנסת, אם חוק יסתור במפורש את אחד מחוקי היסוד.
8) הכנסת תהיה מוסמכת, ברוב של 61 חברי כנסת, לבטל את החלטת הפסילה של בית המשפט העליון (כאמור בתת סעיף 6).
9) בית המשפט העליון לא יהיה מוסמך לבטל חוקי יסוד.
6. ביטול ערכאות וסמכויות
א. יבוטלו בית הדין לעבודה ובית המשפט לענייני משפחה.
ב. בתי המשפט הקיימים (שלום, מחוזי ועליון) לא יעסקו בעניינים אזרחיים, בענייני משפחה או בכל נושא שאיננו מוגדר במפורש כנושא שהם מוסמכים לעסוק בו.
ג. בתי הדין הרבניים יעסקו במכלול הנושאים האזרחיים, כולל דיני עבודה וכל נושא ממוני אחר, ובענייני משפחה.
It should be noted that if Congress is unhappy with a particular case invpolving an interpretation of a statute by SCOTUS that Congress can and often legislate away such a result, as opposed to a case implicating part of the Constituition
The vast majority of cases that the SC has dealt with are not constitutional questions. Agreed-thus the Israeli SC is being misleading in stating even in case where US has a constitution, comparatively very few are decideds on constitutional grounds.
The idea that SC just overturns statutes is relatively rare in the US
I don’t follow the logic of this post at all. Justice Kagan is not arguing for a judicial reform that would eliminate judicial review in the US as established in Marbury vs Madison. She is arguing that *in this case* the court made the wrong decision in to interpret statute and not defer to the administration’s interpretation of statute, even though she *agrees* that it has the well established power to do so. She is very happy for the court to intervene in other cases where she feels it is warranted by the facts and by the law or the Constitution. This sort of opinion comes up every time there dissent to the court exercising its Judicial power.
By contrast, the Judicial reforms in Israel, if passed in totality, would allow a bare majority in the Knesset to pass any law it desires and exclude it from judicial review by declaring it a basic law. This would remove the power of Judicial Review from the Israeli Supreme Court. Neither Kagan nor any other US Supreme Court justice is arguing for that.
Let me then help you understand the logic. The majority did NOT offer an interpretation of a statute, law, or the Constitution. It did not rule about facts. It used the Important Decisions doctrine to say that the executive branch had reached beyond its power. Kagan argued that, au contraire, the Court had exceeded its mandate, which was to rule on matters of statute, law and facts. The Court, she said, should stick to that, and not get involved in matters of policy, which are best left to the voters. Executive branch agencies, she reasoned, are at least peripherally connected to the choices of the polity, certainly more so than the handful of members on the USSC. There is the parallel. Supporters of judicial reform in Israel want to see decision-making restored to the representatives of the people, and curb the overreach of the Court.
No one I know believed from day one that Levin’s package would be approved. They all understood that his points were bargaining chips, and it would take consensus to approve broad reforms. Judicial override by simple majority was never in the works. Moshe Koppel said so from the beginning. The ability to create Basic Laws (in lieu of a constitution that likely will not be created in our lifetimes) will have to require more than a simple majority – but the ability of the Court to deep-six them will also have to be tempered.
I should have added one other member of the USSC as giving a boost to reform. I met Justice Kennedy when I was teaching at Loyola Law School. His bemused admiration of Ahron Barak for turning Israel’s Court into the most activist in the world stuck with me. At the time, I had no expectation that something would ever be done about it.
There is the parallel. Supporters of judicial reform in Israel want to see decision-making restored to the representatives of the people, and curb the overreach of the Court.
Even worse in Israel-although Marshall in Marbury v Madison clearly grabbed power that was not the understanding of those who ratified the Constitution but his Article 111 argument at least has a logical basis. Not the case in Parliamentary democracies where Parliament is supreme.
The “major questions doctrine” is in practice a new attempt by certain Justices to go against standard operating of government for decades. There has always been an issue was the Executive Branch being challenged as performing functions based on issues which are non-delegable .
Whether or not a Supreme Court made a power grab in our Constitutional democracy, it is clear that most Supreme Courts have no authority to overrule the legislature.
Compare with Sandra Day O’Connor ‘s judicial approach, below, which emphasized “dialogue,” including on affirmative action, on a timely note(“Sandra Day O’Connor: The First”, PBS documentary). Both sides on the Israeli debate could learn from the approach of not “swinging for the fences,” in her son’s words:
“Evan Thomas, Author, First: One of the symbols of the Supreme Court is a turtle because that’s the law: It moves incrementally. That was Sandra O’Connor’s law.
Scott O’Connor, Eldest Son: This business of moderation she felt was ultimately a better service to the nation in the role of the Supreme Court than trying to come in and swing for the fences every time you’re at the plate. She was worried, you know, if the Court made a mistake, how would that reflect on the Court in the future and the nation’s confidence in its judiciary?
…Evan Thomas, Author, First: On the really tough cases, the big social issues like affirmative action and abortion, religion, Justice O’Connor’s view was that the Supreme Court is not the last word.
SOT: [Moyers] Nothing’s ever settled on this Court for sure, is it?
[O’Connor] No, it’s never an absolute end to any issue. It’s more a process of a continuing dialogue.
[Moyers] Dialogue — between?
[O’Connor] Between the court and the Congress and the nation as a whole.”
My internal conversation:
Joel1: [joel2] Nothing’s ever settled in halacha for sure, is it?
[Joel1] No, it’s never an absolute end to any issue. It’s more a process of a continuing dialogue.
[joel2] Dialogue — between?
[Joel1] Between the gedolim and the gvirim and amcha as a whole over generations
KT
Joel,
Here are some examples which could be seen as involving a contemporary Jewish application of Justice O’Connor’s concept of a “dialogue” with leadership. R. Adlerstein wrote in the Klal Perspectives Technology issue(2015):
“In the days of Chazal, a new gezerah had an incubation period. If it proved to be too onerous to the public, it stood to be pulled.[2] We can speculate as to whether Chazal today would wait as long as they used to. Our new world requires far less time to determine public reaction, and to assess whether some well-intentioned edict may be too draconian for the masses.
[2] See Avodah Zarah 36A. Shemen akum is one example of a gezerah that was simply rejected by the public, and therefore un-legislated.”
http://klalperspectives.org/rabbi-yitzchok-adlerstein-4/
Jonathan Rosenblum contrasted the American and Israeli approaches in decision-making, mentioning wider discussion and feedback in “The First Klal Perspectives Shabbaton”(2016):
“It therefore saddens me to realize that the current culture in the Torah community in Israel would find little place for a Klal Perspectives. That is painful on two accounts. First, even in a society in which decision-making authority is highly centralized, there must be feedback mechanisms that provide the leaders with some means of knowing what the populace is thinking and what are their concerns for the future. The presence of feedback mechanisms is a large part of the reason market economies are more efficient and democracies are, at least most of the time, more stable.
A journal like Klal Perspectives aims to provide, inter alia, feedback to decision-makers and sometimes to help frame issues. In a similar vein, Rabbi Moshe Sherer sometimes arranged for two teams of articulate baalebatim to debate specific issues in front of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah of America prior to major decisions. Some issues of Klal Perspectives have drawn heavily on empirical research, an area only now developing in Israel under the auspices of the Machon Hareidi.
The very premise of Klal Perspectives – i.e., that discussion is good and beneficial – runs against the grain in Eretz Yisrael…”
https://www.jewishmediaresources.com/1802/the-first-klal-perspectives-shabbaton
Clearly whoever pulls Biden’s strings does not want him meeting with Bibi, period, because they don’t like Israel, period, and especially don’t like it when it’s run by someone from the other “side.” So they’ve latched onto judicial reform- a topic that, of all things, they should simply be keeping their nose out of- as an excuse.
It doesn’t have to make sense. Just like the protesters/rioters in Israel who have been screaming about the inviolability of the courts are now attacking them for ruling in favor of Bibi.
(And before you accuse the Right of being similarly hypocritical, no, they are not. Judging Bibi’s case is what courts are *for*. Making unilateral vast changes in society is not.
I agree that it is no business of foreign countries or their leaders to get involved with internal governmental powers. Might be fair if complaining about policies country is implementing that affects, human rights but power between courts and legislature nobody else’s business.
LBJ once observed in a very ribald manner that the passage of thefirst piece of substantive legislation in any area of law in 100 years such as the 1958 Civil Rights Act, the first such piece of legislation passed since Reconstruction which lacked real teeth and means of enforcement was the toughest but that substantive legislation would be passed in a much more easier manner. There will be reform but on an incremental , as opposed to a wholesale basis Dr Gewirtz aka Dr Bill is correct-The SCOTUS in the school loan case merely said that Biden could not intepret a statute that had no application to student loans by twisting its express language and legislative history like a pretzel, stand on his head and claim that it applied to student loans in the absence of any congressional authority or legislative history stating that such was the intent. The cases involving the website owner and affirmative action imnplicated violations of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment , which after decisions at the district court level and circuit court of appeals level, were cases which SCOTUS pursuant to grants of certiorari, deemed worthy of its review
Stop making O’Connor a saint-she was not judicially oriented or consistent ideologically. Most important see how she voted in terms of whose side was involved. Compared to her Justices Thomas and Ginsburg were models of judiciary consistency
Thomas has always been a fine writer whether in the majority or as a dissenter.RBG wrote rather pedestrian opinions and reached superstar status solely as a feminist icon
Justice Kagan’s remarks should be taken in proper context–the United States has a Constitution. Israel does not, so without its Supreme Court minority rights can be completely ignored.
Israel’s HC defends minority rights indeed, the minorities that they like (Arabs, illegal immigrants, far left Jews, etc.)
It’s the majority (Masorti and religious Jews, with a rightwing tilt and a nationalist spirit) that pays the price.
Furthermore, when it’s a matter of disfavored minorities (the majority above, broken to it’s components- Settlers like me, Charedim, the Jewish population of mixed towns etc.) they get no help at all from the HC. only abuse.
Again there is no comparison to the checks and balances in the US. The High Court in Israel is the sole check on the unbridled power of a legislature which for decades has done everything in its power to favor the right wing nationalist and religious camps at the expense of everyone else.
rkz, so the system is working. the Knesset with Bibi, the Haredim and the land-uber-alles parties protect you while the SC protects the minorities. Democracy at work!!
Reb Yid,
The Israel that you describe and the actual Israel that I live in, are two different countries.
The actual State of Israel with its actual system, including the Knesset, operates very differently than the counterfactual way it is presented in the left wing media here, and in the US, and in the rest of the English speaking world (and probably in other countries, but I only understand Hebrew and English)
William Gewirtz,
The system would work if the Knesset would actually do that, and if there was some sort of checks and balances between the branches.
Since that’s not how the Knesset operates, and since the HC and all the other branches of the Bureaucracy (and almost all of the media etc.) are a bastion of the far left and also far more powerful than the Knesset, it doesn’t work at all.
It’s remarkable that those in government, business, media, and academia who believe least in G-d act as if total power is their own Divine right, not subject to restriction by mere citizens or laws on the books. This makes some crazy sense if they worship themselves.
“Democracy” does not mean obstructing highways so ambulances can’t get to hospitals or obstructing functioning of airports and in the case of Israel of a secular Sweden on the coast of the Mediterranean with a self perpetuating judiciary acting as an elite with disdain for the results of the elections Ruth Gavisson a great professor of law and a person of the left objected to the Court’s intervention on Halachic and national security issues and was found wanting by CJ Barak as a candidate for the court because of her views not because of her scholarship
Mycroft wrote in part”
“Agreed-US certainly not anticipated before Marshall’s power grab in 1803 Marbury v Madison. Remember CJ of SC was not considered an important position”
So what role would SCOTUS play in your view of the US being a constitutional republic and not a democracy-other than rubber stamping the acts of the President and Congress? I think that Marshall was correct-judical review was implicitly written into Article III to ensure that judicial review would protect the rights of individuals set forth in the Bill of Rights and to protect against arbitrary acts by the Executive and tyranny of the majority as passed by the HR as opposed to the Senate, which was supposed to be a far more deliberative chamber and a brake on the HR’s potential for passing legslaion that was overly populist in nature.
Supreme Courts without judicial review power have plenty to do-they interpret laws-if legislatures not satisfied with law they can override the law.
IIRC it was about 50 years after Marbury v Madison that SC ruled unconstitutional a law IIRC Dred Scott Decision. Other democracies did not have Supreme Court deciding laws don’t apply.
If you look at John Jay quitting as CJ of the Supreme Court in 1795 to run for Governor of NY one can realize that SC was not expected to have such power. We are not the only democracy in the world-others have survived very well wo judicial review. One needs courts to interpret laws not to make laws. Sadly, what happens is that the SC Justices on Both sides act as a super legislature trying to push their agendas.
Article 111 predates the Bill of Rights thus judicial review couldn’t have been written in to protect.
I disagree with your premise that SC implicitly protects individuals. I’m a few years older than you, but we are roughly from same era that would have been what we were taught in our HS/College Days when Waren Ct was supreme.-but for most of our history SC has been the branch of government least pro individual rights.
It was standard in democracies except for US that SC can’t override laws-what happened of course relatively recently mostly in our working time, some Supreme Courts felt jealous of power that USSC has and started grabbing such power-but implicitly in a parliamentary system legislature Supreme and wo fixed term Prime Ministers can always be recalled by votes of no confidence.
Mycroft,
Justice O’Connor has been criticized for lacking a judicial philosophy in her case-by-case approach. As Charles Krauthammer wrote in The Washington Post(2005):
“…This is O’Connorism in its purest essence. She had not so much a judicial philosophy as a social philosophy. Unlike a principled conservative such as Antonin Scalia, or a principled liberal such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, O’Connor had no stable ideas about constitutional interpretation. Her idea of jurisprudence was to decide whether legislation produced social “systems” that either worked or did not…Would she decide that the long-term stability introduced by returning abortion to the elected branches of government would outweigh the short-term instability it would produce? You could not be sure. What you could be sure of was that she would come up with some ad hoc constitutional principle to justify her empirical judgment.”
I nevertheless think one can learn from the three metaphors of moderation I mentioned in connection with Justice O’Connor: a turtle as an incremental symbol of the Supreme Court, not swinging for the fences, and law as dialogue. The devil, though, is in the details regarding compromise, as President Herzog can attest to, besides any differences between the Founding Fathers, in a nod to July 4th, and Israel’s cultural roots, as well as constitutional differences between both countries.
The NYS court’s novel ruling earlier this year transforming the way New York State can regulate yeshivas would perhaps have made O’Connor proud for its moderation, as it indeed had both the Agudah and YAFFED celebrating parts of the ruling and lamenting others. Prof. Michael Helfand commented on this in a JTA article this March:
“I would have expected people reading the statute not to really differentiate between whether ‘substantially equivalent’ is a parental obligation or a school obligation,” he said. “The fact that the court so clearly zeroed in on this being a parental obligation as opposed to the school and was willing to slice the obligation in such a precise way — I think it’s something we haven’t seen before.”
It’s strange to ask anybody to make their product or choice substantially equivalent to a totally failed one.
Failing yeshivas should be substantially equivalent to successful secular education, not to substandard secular education! In other words, those yeshivas which need improvement should neither hide behind the failing public schools nor behind the successful yeshivos.
NYC Mayor Adams, in a speech delivered before the OU this May, suggested, as you say, that the city’s public schools were failing students and should follow the yeshivas’ example(see link). But again, it depends which yeshivas are being discussed — failing public schools should indeed learn from the positives of the yeshiva system.
https://www.jta.org/2023/05/15/ny/new-york-city-mayor-eric-adams-praises-yeshiva-education-pushes-back-on-criticism
There was a nice video included in an article last week by Reuters which highlighted the positives of the British Charedi yeshivos. I found 15-year-old Yossi Hamilton articulate:
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/britains-orthodox-haredi-jews-wary-state-intrusion-education-2023-07-06/
As we speak, education in the finest secular private schools, that is highly successful on its own terms, is immersed in wokism. This seeps into nearly all subject matter and instruction, except maybe math.
One part of a series: https://capitalresearch.org/article/wokeism-in-private-schools-part-4/
Another piece on the topic: https://californiapolicycenter.org/elite-private-schools-go-woke/
And don’t think the poshest Jewish schools, which have the least to fear from state intervention, are immune to societal influences, either.
Mycroft wrote in relevant part:
“I disagree with your premise that SC implicitly protects individuals. I’m a few years older than you, but we are roughly from same era that would have been what we were taught in our HS/College Days when Waren Ct was supreme.-but for most of our history SC has been the branch of government least pro individual rights”
Who else is to protect citizens from violations of their rights by government ? Since the Warren Court, the Court has been the protector of individual rights ?What other institution is to prevent unconstitutional acts either by a president or by Congress? I think Marshall was correct in Marbury in asserting that this was at least the implied role of SCOTUS as opposed to serving as a mere rubber stamp for the legislative and executive branches.
Mycroft-have you read https://www.amazon.com/Least-Dangerous-Branch-Supreme-Politics/dp/0300032994https://www.amazon.com/Morality-Consent-Alexander-M-Bickel/dp/0300021194 You won’t find a better articulation of what SCOTUS should or should not do and its relationship with the executive and judicial branches
Above, Steven Brizel wrote this about SCOTUS:
“Who else is to protect citizens from violations of their rights by government ? Since the Warren Court, the Court has been the protector of individual rights ?What other institution is to prevent unconstitutional acts either by a president or by Congress?”
Evidently, Chief Justice Roberts has neglected to protect US citizens from the abuse of FISA warrants and related FBI surveillance:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/11/what_about_your_fisa_judges_justice_roberts.html
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/reauthorization-fisa-big-reforms-fbi-abuse-durham-report