The Supreme Court just ruled the firing of Ronen Bar, head of the Shabak, was not according to proper procedure and was also unlawful due to conflict of interest.

Minister Dudi Amsalem just filed a petition with the Supreme Court to draft the Arab community in Israel to the IDF.

My position that we can no longer come to terms with entire sectors being exempted from army service is well known. Together with that, the obstinacy of the Supreme Court to obligate the government to change a situation that nobody has been able to change for 70 years specifically now, during an ongoing war, is infuriating, idiocy and plays into the hands of the enemies of Israel.

MK Tzvika Fogel (Otzma Yehudit) raised quite a stir a little while ago when he said, "First of all we will defeat Hamas, immediately afterwards we will deal with Hezbollah, and for dessert we will make order in the Supreme Court. Everyone has his time. Patience."

So the coalition has officially passed the Reasonableness Clause law, and immediately the Supreme Court was petitioned against the law.

If Netanyahu will fold on [the judicial reforms issue] that will be the end of the ability of religious Jews to live in the Land of Israel. They are fighting for the Supreme Court so that they can make us leave our religion. The Supreme Court is the head of those chasing down the rights of the Haredi minority sector... everybody admits that the IDF does not need a mandatory draft law. I have proposed a law to cancel the mandatory draft. Mandatory draft is just so they can make us leave our religion. It is Yaharog V'Al Yaavor.

I dont know what the Supreme Court will decide in the Deri case, though it seems all the Shas people do know and are flipping out in advance. As I said, I think their is their campaign to pressure the court. If they decide Deri is out, the Shas people will all say we were right, it was obvious, the Supreme Court is against Deri, against Sefardim, against the Right etc. If they let Deri serve the Shas people will eventually say their campaign was successful.

I am not sure what the big issue with Minister of Health Nitzan Horowitz is regarding the hospitals and chametz this coming Pesach. Ministers and MKs on the right, in the coalition as well, are speaking out angrily about Horowitz's position regarding the allowing of chametz into the hospitals, or more precisely, the stopping of checking bags to prevent chametz from being brought in.

As per the Supreme Court decision last year that would require hospitals to allow patients or visitors to bring chametz in, the hospitals are technically no longer to have their guards stop people form bringing in chametz. It became known that Hadassah Hospital had "asked its employees" and patients and visitors to agree willingly to not bring chametz in over Pesach.

The news is reporting that the Supreme Court has decided against the continued restrictions limiting Israelis abroad from returning to Israel.

A couple of years ago there was a dispute in Kiryat Gat when the rav of the city, Rav Havlin, refused to grant mehadrin kashrut certification to a caterer because of Ethiopian employees (cooks) that the rav said needed to have their Judaism authenticated.

People are upset about the Supreme Court decision regarding conversions, but there seems to be a misunderstanding.

No rav will listen to the Supreme Court. The halacha does not recognize it, and the Supreme Court can't change the halacha

the Supreme Court decision regarding the acceptance of private conversions, seemingly opening the door for Reform conversions to be accepted in Israel, was not unexpected. What is interesting is more on the side of the various reactions to it, rather than the decision itself.

The Supreme Court rejected the government request to delay a decision on the Conversion Bill until after the elections, to give the 24th Knesset a chance to finally legislate the matter. The Court indicated it will give its decision prior to the upcoming elections.

One of the big complaints during the various lockdowns has been by businesses. The complaint is that while many small businesses deemed non-essential are shut down due to the lockdown, the supermarkets and other essential stores have begun selling many of the items from those non-essential stores.

I like how Uman comes up in totally unrelated situations.

The other day it was reported that a couple of people and organizations petitioned the Supreme Court against the Lag B'Omer closure on the area of Meron and Kever Rashbi, especially against those who want to be there for the traditional haircut for a child that reaches the age of 3 years old.

Briefly, the claims against the closure are that it damages freedom of religious worship, is discriminatory against those who wish to participate in the "hilula" of Rashbi vs the general public that does not. Another claim is that some Admorim are being let in to participate but no criteria was published for how people can qualify for such a permit, and why should some people be allowed in but not others.

Another claim, specifically about the chalaka, is that the chalaka is limited by time and the custom is Lag B'Omer by Kever Rashbi, not the week or month after and not somewhere else - it should be allowed, as there is no alternative to the custom as it is.

Basically they want the Supreme Court to rule against the closure and allow the public to go to Kever Rashbi on lag B'Omer to celebrate and perform the custom of chalaka.

The State just responded presenting their side of the case. They started with the obvious explaining the spread of the virus especially at events with masses of people and show the numbers how social distancing has worked to prevent the spread. The State explained that it decided to have small lightings, one for each participating community - Sefardi, Hassidic and Dati Leumi, each with equal numbers of minimal participants, public health concerns, blah blah blah etc.

The interesting part is when the State said that despite the importance of the freedom of religious worship, when it conflicts with other more important rights, such as the right to life, the freedom of worship can be limited. With the State allowing bonfires on Kever Rashbi, in a limited capacity, it is not preventing the freedom of worship, just limiting it due to the seriosu public health concerns.

The State commented that the right to prayer is not being stopped, as people can continue to pray, just not there. Halacha also recognizes the concept of pikuach nefesh. The State specifically pointed to the official Chief Rabbis, and even Rav Chaim Kanievsky, who stated that Pikuach nefesh is more important and it should be closed and shut down to personal attendance this year.

I find it interesting that they petitioned the Supreme Court over the closure of Meron but not the closure of synagogues and yeshivas. That they accepted as ok, but the limiting of bonfires is an outrageous and unreasonable act of limiting freedom of worship.

And, interestingly, the State pointed to Rav Chaim Kanievsky to "prove" that the rabbonim say this year it is prohibited. Rav Chaim Kanievsky has some sort of status for everybody, but he is really one of the rabbinic leaders of the Litvishe community, not the sefardic and not the hassidic (even if they respect him greatly). The Litvishe community isnt even one of the groups that got a bonfire allocation, showing how little the Litvishe community thinks of this as important, yet the State pointed to Rav Chaim Kanievsky's "issur" to placate the Hassidic and Sefardic petitioners...

I can't beliueve the Court did not just reject this petition oturight. When the State is busy limiting the citizens and residents in so many ways due to valid health concerns, this should not even be an issue - it is definitely not the most important of all the issues.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be deciding this morning whether there is a legal impediment to Benjamin Netanyahu forming a government and becoming Prime Minister again despite being under indictment.

If the Supreme Court decides against Netanyahu, it will send us to another round of elections. This is not just a threat out of anger against Supreme Court intervention, but was solidified in the agreements between Gantz and Netanyahu as well, so elections will happen.

What I do not understand is, if the Supreme Court rules against netanyahu and says he cannot form  a government, what will new elections help? The Supreme Court will already have decided that he cannot form the government, and even if he wins the new elections he still will not be able to form the government. So what would elections do for anybody? If the Supreme Court rules against Netanyahu, the Likud should appoint someone in his place. Elections will not do anything to let the Likud run the government again with Netanyahu at its head, as far as I can tell.

In general, I think the Supreme Court should have ruled on this long ago. They refused to rule on this during the election cycle saying it is not a relevant discussion until Netanyahu is set to form a coalition. To me it seems like they wasted all this time and if they were going to invalidate Netanyahu form being allowed to form a coalition (and I do not know that they will), it made sense to do so before elections, so Likud could run a candidate that would be allowed to form a coalition. Why force elections with a candidate that cannot form a government? I do wonder if perhaps not ruling on this earlier means it is likely they will allow Netanyahu to form a government, but I am not sure that is conclusive.

Regardless, if they rule against Netanyahu this morning, I am not sure what new elections will resolve.