Lapid: Dark forces trying to bulldoze courts with a D9
The opposition leader said that Netanyahu and his supporters, “instead of stepping on brakes… are slamming down on the accelerator.”
By YONAH JEREMY BOBOpposition leader Yair Lapid speaks at an Israel Democracy Institute video conference, July 27, 2020(photo credit: ISRAEL DEMOCRACY INSTITUTE)
Opposition leader Yair Lapid warned on Monday that “dark forces are trying to bulldoze the courts with a D9 [bulldozer],” at an Israel Democracy Institute videoconference.Lapid’s speech was unusual in that he not only attacked the current government on some of the more standard political fault lines, but he also went into more serious detail about his views for balancing the judiciary and the legislative branches.He started by accusing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of causing many of the issues by “unforgivably and intolerably” refusing to resign despite his indictment and ongoing bribery trial.The opposition leader said that Netanyahu and his supporters, “instead of stepping on brakes… are slamming down on the accelerator.”Waxing philosophical, he said that some amount of tension between the courts and the legislature is built into every democracy given their different purposes and way of operating.“A trial is about aggressively seeking the truth – and it is zero sum – the court cannot announce a tie... It must pick a side,” he said. “Without this, there is no way to run a society.”In contrast, he said, “the Knesset works the opposite. A good law which was well-considered doesn’t deal with absolute values, but the proper balance between competing and contradictory priorities... Humans aren’t perfect and laws aren’t perfect.”Warning that, “when the Knesset tries to ignore a court ruling, that is when Israel leaves the definition of a democracy,” he said some politicians try to take such actions under the guise of “a circumvention law or governance,” when really they are bringing about pure “lawlessness.”Lapid said he thinks the courts can be criticized and can be improved, but that the politicized atmosphere actually prevents this by undermining nuanced approaches.Also, he said that it would be hard to carry out any judicial reform while the prime minister was fighting for his innocence in a criminal trial.In terms of nuanced solutions, Lapid recommended that the country and the Knesset set out a structure for how the Knesset and the judiciary should interact regarding Basic Laws.He said that a law should only be designated a Basic Law with a super majority of 80 MKs, which, practically speaking, will require some opposition support.Likewise, a Basic Law should only be possible to be repealed or changed by 80 MKs.Without this structure, Lapid said the Basic Laws can and will be changed and toyed with by every new coalition, accusing the current government of a deep disrespect for the Basic Laws.He said that the current coalition’s numerous changes to the Basic Laws had no long-term priorities or vision, but were directed “only at the politics of the moment – they did this because they could with 61 MKs – any coalition can.”The opposition leader suggested that “we need to build norms for how a state is run” properly.As part of this package deal of making Basic Laws more stable and demanding they have wider support, Lapid said he would then support making it harder for the High Court of Justice to veto a Basic Law, requiring a two-thirds vote of a nine-justice expanded panel.In addition, he said in this context he would support a Knesset override of a High Court veto with a 70-MK vote, provided that at least 10 opposition MKs supported the override.Next, he said that there is a problem that defending “human rights is now viewed as leftist judges obstructing state powers... But both the Right and the Left have something to say about human rights.”Moreover, he said that the courts usually intervene on human rights issues only “because there is no clear legislation. People who don’t like the courts to intervene... then they need to set clear standards in the laws.”For example, he said he disagreed with an earlier court ruling allowing the screening of the anti-Israel movie Jenin Jenin, but that if the legislature had properly addressed the issue, the court would not have intervened.He said that the legislature could also limit some aspects of standing to bring cases to the court, such as how much funding is given to Sderot to deal with security issues – something which he said should be ironed out by politicians and security specialists.
