The legislation on judicial appointments, which was supposed to be presented for final Knesset approval on Monday, was meant to achieve three goals set at the start of this process.
None relate to the domination of the Supreme Court.
The first has now obtained broad support – ensuring that sitting judges cannot veto the appointment of a new colleague on the bench on their own. All who have suggested a compromise in the media, in writing, in private, or in any other way have agreed that the judicial veto over appointments to the bench should be abolished.
A democratic country cannot tolerate self-replicating governmental authority that controls its own membership. This is the first foundational principle addressed in this landmark legislation.
The second principle is ensuring that representatives of the people have a meaningful voice in judicial appointments by stopping the unprecedented and unparalleled judicial appointment procedure in which the representatives of the people, including coalition and opposition together, are in the minority.
The current judicial appointment mechanism enables an unelected legal bloc to appoint all Israeli judges in the lower courts. This is the case even if all the democratically elected officials on the committee claim that the decision is erroneous or that the candidate is not suitable for the position.
Jewish traditional sources
Jewish traditional sources teach us that no public servant should be appointed without the public’s consent. Yet in Israel today, judges can be appointed even if all the elected officials oppose their appointment.
This practice will now end. The bill being prepared in the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee requires an 11-person Judicial Selection Committee in which eight members are from the political branches: six coalition members and two opposition members each representing the people of Israel in the momentous question of judicial appointments.
This bill represents our obligation to govern in the interest of all Israeli citizens, not simply for the specific interests of the coalition, the opposition or the court.
The elected representatives in the coalition are not the representatives of the prime minister or any other minister. They are the representatives of the people, democratically elected to their positions. Whatever their ideological affiliation or political agenda, the preferences of the majority on the committee will be expressed in the Supreme Court, as well as in the lower courts.
THUS, THE bill fulfills the second goal, addressing the need for the people to select judges. Our third goal took shape over the months in which this legislation was debated and discussed, based on comments from the public, the opposition and others. They correctly noted that we must take care to prevent a hostile takeover of the court by one side or another through court packing.
I must say, knowing every part of the reform intimately, this scenario is extremely unlikely to happen when it comes to the current coalition. However, we are not legislating for the current coalition alone but for future generations.
Therefore, the bill provides an adequate and thorough solution to the unwanted possibility of a random coalition taking over the court by appointing a large number of justices. As I mentioned, all one needs to do is read the bill and see for oneself this is so.
Additionally and nonetheless important:
Anyone who has followed the committee sessions knows that in the last few months, I have spent many hours in the committee room. But for every hour I spent on the committee, I spent two in different negotiation rooms trying to achieve agreements.
The agreements we attempted to arrive at had to do with the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee, as well as the other parts of the reforms.
Unfortunately, our offered hand did not meet another. I call on my friends in the opposition, the people I talked to from academia, the hi-tech industry, economists and those from all different groups of society: take our offered hand.
A widely accepted agreement is within reach. It is possible. The differences between us are not that large.
All it takes is goodwill and the understanding that this is an opportunity that we should stay instead of it becoming, God forbid, an emergency.
I join my colleague and head of the party, Bezalel Smotrich, in calling for talks in the coming recess and in the return after Passover and our national holidays. May we all walk together towards a plan for the benefit of Israel; all of us: coalition, opposition, the people in the fields and in the cities.
I wish to thank the head of the party, the prime minister, the justice minister, all the heads of the coalition, the members of the coalition and my friends on the committee for their support and help. Thank you.
The writer is the chair of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee.