The Knesset Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee finished voting on Tuesday on the approximately 70,000 revisions filed by opposition MKs on a bill proposal to alter the makeup of the committee responsible for electing judges.
Opposition MKs decided to boycott part of the voting after committee chairman MK Simcha Rothman refused their requests to postpone it. The requests came after family members of hostages criticized the government for endangering the hostages by returning to a war in Gaza.
Lishay Miran, the wife of hostage Omri Miran, said during the meeting that she woke up again that morning to the question: “Mother, why are you not bringing father back from Gaza?“With all the votes you are holding here, I will also ask that question. Why are you not returning Omri from Gaza?” she said.
Miran added that the bombing “may have killed” her husband and pleaded that the committee cease its meeting and focus on returning the hostages instead.
Democrats MK Gilad Kariv said that while the government decided to resume the fighting, which at the very least poses a dramatic risk to the lives of the hostages, and as planes circle over Gaza, in the Knesset, everything continues as usual.
“It is as though IDF Caterpillar D9 bulldozers are rushing toward the Supreme Court. This is an unfathomable level of indifference,” he said during the meeting.
“I urge you to close the discussion and not advance it even one step further. Allow room for the families’ cries. Any progress in the discussion means turning your back on their outcry, and we must not close our hearts, ears, and eyes.”
Working its way through Knesset
With the revisions out of the way, the bill will now head to the Knesset House Committee, which will grant procedural approval to the bill. That approval is necessary since Rothman repeatedly changed the bill’s wording, and the final version included newly changed elements.
In the coming days, the bill will return to the Constitution panel for final approval, after which it will return to the Knesset plenum, where it will go up for its second and third readings and, if passed, then become law. The coalition aims to pass the bill into law prior to the Knesset’s Passover recess on April 2.
The Judicial Selection Committee’s makeup since Israel’s foundation has included nine members – three Supreme Court justices, two ministers, two MKs (traditionally one from the coalition and one from the opposition), and two representatives of the Israel Bar Association.
According to the new proposal, the two IBA members would be replaced by two lawyers, one appointed by the coalition and the other by the opposition.
In addition, per the proposal, the majority necessary for Supreme Court appointments would revert back to 5-4 instead of the current 7-2. However, every court appointment would require the agreement of at least one representative from the opposition and one from the coalition.
Appointments to all other judicial brackets would require the approval of one member of the coalition, one from the opposition, and one of the justices.
The proposal also includes a mechanism to prevent a deadlock in Supreme Court appointments. If a year passes with at least two vacancies, the coalition and opposition would each propose three candidates, out of which the other side must choose one (along with the justices). Finally, the law would only apply beginning with the next Knesset.
A draft of the current version was first presented on January 9 as a “compromise” between Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar and earned the support of two bereaved fathers, former minister Izhar Shay and former Fire and Rescue Services chief Dedi Simchi.
Shay has since reneged on his support of the bill.
Proponents of the bill argued that it was a worthy compromise since it did not give the coalition total power over judicial appointments and would only apply in the next Knesset.
However, its detractors, including the opposition, the Attorney-General’s Office, and a wide array of civil society organizations, argued that increasing political involvement in the judicial selection process would negatively affect the court’s independence, as judicial appointments would become part of political negotiations.