Israel’s Supreme Court has a long tradition of independence. But over the past two decades, largely under the influence of Mr. Barak, 71, it took the ideal of enlightened liberality to new heights. It abolished the principle of standing, meaning that petitioners need not have a direct stake in the outcome of a case they bring. This opened the court up to civil rights groups and a flood of public petitions. Because of a historic anomaly dating from the British Mandate, petitioners appeal directly to the Supreme Court, without the filter of a lower court.
The Supreme Court also broadened the rules to the point where practically every government decision is open to review.
In 1995, Mr. Barak declared what amounted to a constitutional revolution, ruling that the country’s basic laws, the set of laws outlining Israel’s structure and values, had an elevated status compared with ordinary legislation, almost like a constitution. And deriving from principles in two basic laws on human rights enacted in 1992, Mr. Barak granted the Supreme Court the authority to invalidate parliamentary legislation that contradicted the basic laws.
The Supreme Court has used these powers very sparingly. Still, Mr. Friedmann wants them curbed.
His allies include legislators as well as other sectors of Israeli society who want to see the legal establishment restrained, among them politicians and business figures who have been investigated or indicted, and the religious and nationalist camps, which eschew the Supreme Court’s liberal approach.
American conservatives have also weighed in. Robert H. Bork, a key theorist of the American legal right, has complained that Mr. Barak’s ideas are “a textbook for judicial activists” and that Mr. Barak has established “a world record for judicial hubris.” Richard A. Posner, a senior American appeals court judge, called Mr. Barak “a legal buccaneer.” Mr. Friedmann’s critics say it is he who presents a threat to the delicate fabric of Israeli democracy.
Arye Carmon, president of the Israel Democracy Institute, an independent research institute in Jerusalem, agrees that Mr. Barak’s moves give the court undue influence over the political process. But he says that Mr. Friedmann presents “a danger to the stability of the relationship between the authorities,” which is “already shaky enough.”
Mr. Friedmann denounces Supreme Court intervention in security and budgetary issues and the appointment of ministers and other officials...“I find this unacceptable,” Mr. Friedmann said. “If the court acts this way, they make themselves superprosecutors. To me it is almost inconceivable that they should decide on the charge to be brought.”
Mr. Friedmann wants to change the composition of the judicial appointments committee, in order to reduce the influence of Supreme Court justices on the appointment process and make it less of a closed club.
He also opposes the custom of appointing the chief justice on the basis of seniority.
Source
Posts
