A welcome pause in Israel for needed reforms
Washington Examiner
Video Embed
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced a much-needed pause in his push for judicial reforms yesterday amid growing protests and resignations from his Cabinet.
Netanyahu has now given the opposition a month to come to the negotiating table with their own package of reforms. Let’s hope they do because Israel’s judicial system is in much need of reform.
HOUSE REPUBLICANS’ FIRST BIG LEGISLATIVE TEST
Unlike the United States, Israel does not have a written constitution that specifies the balance of power between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Like the United Kingdom, Israel has a parliamentary system, which means the legislative and executive branches overlap — the latter is embedded in the former.
It often takes an alliance of different parties to form a coalition to control Israel’s legislature, the Knesset, but once a coalition controls the Knesset, it also controls most of the executive branch. Unlike our system, wherein one party can control Congress while the other party controls the White House, Israel’s system does not envision such a separation.
Israel’s process for keeping the judiciary separate from the other two branches is also entirely different from ours. Instead of judges being nominated by the executive and confirmed by the legislature and then having lifetime tenure, Israel has a nine-member committee that selects judges. That committee comprises three Supreme Court judges, two representatives of the Bar Association, two Cabinet members, and two members of parliament, only one of whom is from the ruling party.
With the existing court and Bar Association controlled by the far Left, this system means that no matter who has been elected to govern the country, the existing left-wing judicial establishment remains entrenched. It has made Israel’s judicial system an undemocratic obstacle to democratic change.
Netanyahu wants to reform how judges are selected by giving the ruling party a majority of seats on the committee. This is good commonsense reform.
Israel’s Supreme Court is an activist institution that has vastly expanded its own power to try cases and has become untethered to the written statutes of laws passed by the Knesset. The second plank of Netanyahu’s reforms is to give the Knesset the right to overturn any Supreme Court opinion with a simple majority vote. This case-by-case cherry-picking of case review is imprudent and the wrong approach to a real problem.
Instead of attempting to rein in the court one controversial opinion at a time, the Knesset should restate what the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is to be for all future cases and identify principles on how cases should be decided. Our Congress has the power to shape our judiciary’s jurisdiction and has used it.
The deal between Netanyahu and the opposition could take various forms, and the details are for Israeli politicians to decide. But there is consensus that Israel’s judicial system is broken and needs reform. Leader of the Opposition Yair Lapid says he wants a written constitution. That may be a bridge too far, but it is good to see both sides talking about compromise.