Considering that it's a modification of a Basic Law, it.would be even more incendiary if they tried to strike it down on anything other than procedural grounds (e.g., it was.not.passed properly). The Supreme Court has implied that they have the.right.to overturn Basic Laws, but has not yet dared to actually do so.
Hang on, doesn't Herzog have to sign off on it before it becomes an official law? Can he refuse to sign? If he delays, can the Court strike it down before it's actually a law?
If the Supreme Court upholds this law, the present govt wins.
If the Supreme Court invalidates this law, the present govt will have minimal trouble finding a motivated following to legislate the Override clause (פסקת התגברות) to make ignoring the Court legal. And they most certainly wouldn't compromise then on requiring a super-majority of 75, 70, or even 65 votes. They'd go for a simple 61 vote majority and overide the courts then and there. And the present govt wins again.
By winning, they lose. They can convince people that a vague "reasonable" is not sufficient to override the electorate. They can convince people that the government should have a firmer say in who gets to be on the Court. They cannot convince people that 61 is enough for an override and will lose the next election over it. The problem from the beginning isn't what they're doing, it's who's doing it. Look at the government benches and you see a bunch of professional thugs (DL) and parasites (UO) who are salivating at their chance to corrupt the state for their agenda and get away with it.
They certainly don't think that this will cost them the election. Like often happens, it will all come down to who can get their base more motivated to show up on voting day.
I think it'll be more than that. There's a population in the middle, secular Ashkenazis who aren't leftists but aren't die-hard conservative either. If they can be swayed towards the Left, that'll cost Likud lots of seats.
I don’t understand how the Supreme Court can deal with this case when there is such a blatant and obvious conflict of interest. This law reduces their power. If they strike it down they retain their power. Does anyone believe that they can possibly be objective?
it isnt the courts fault that someone filed a petition with them. we'll have to wait and see what they say. They may say it is unreasonable (or some other reason to invalidate it), they may say it is fine, they may say we arent going to hear this case.
Well the irony is clear. The role of the Court is supposed to be hear petitions. It was Aharon Barak who changed that to being activist and inventing petitions if no one brought any. So they can argue that since someone is challenging them, they have to hear it and since it's still legal for them to use "reasonable" since the new law hasn't been signed yet, they can strike it down. And yes, it would smack of self-interest but what do they care? If we were "enlightened" like them, we'd agree with them doing it.
No one likes a sore loser and the left is doing a great job being one.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that it's a modification of a Basic Law, it.would be even more incendiary if they tried to strike it down on anything other than procedural grounds (e.g., it was.not.passed properly). The Supreme Court has implied that they have the.right.to overturn Basic Laws, but has not yet dared to actually do so.
ReplyDeleteHang on, doesn't Herzog have to sign off on it before it becomes an official law?
ReplyDeleteCan he refuse to sign?
If he delays, can the Court strike it down before it's actually a law?
If the Supreme Court upholds this law, the present govt wins.
ReplyDeleteIf the Supreme Court invalidates this law, the present govt will have minimal trouble finding a motivated following to legislate the Override clause (פסקת התגברות) to make ignoring the Court legal. And they most certainly wouldn't compromise then on requiring a super-majority of 75, 70, or even 65 votes. They'd go for a simple 61 vote majority and overide the courts then and there. And the present govt wins again.
By winning, they lose. They can convince people that a vague "reasonable" is not sufficient to override the electorate. They can convince people that the government should have a firmer say in who gets to be on the Court. They cannot convince people that 61 is enough for an override and will lose the next election over it.
DeleteThe problem from the beginning isn't what they're doing, it's who's doing it. Look at the government benches and you see a bunch of professional thugs (DL) and parasites (UO) who are salivating at their chance to corrupt the state for their agenda and get away with it.
They certainly don't think that this will cost them the election. Like often happens, it will all come down to who can get their base more motivated to show up on voting day.
DeleteI think it'll be more than that. There's a population in the middle, secular Ashkenazis who aren't leftists but aren't die-hard conservative either. If they can be swayed towards the Left, that'll cost Likud lots of seats.
ReplyDeleteI don’t understand how the Supreme Court can deal with this case when there is such a blatant and obvious conflict of interest. This law reduces their power. If they strike it down they retain their power. Does anyone believe that they can possibly be objective?
ReplyDeleteWell the Court clearly believes that it is "reasonable" to think that they will be objective.
Deleteit isnt the courts fault that someone filed a petition with them. we'll have to wait and see what they say. They may say it is unreasonable (or some other reason to invalidate it), they may say it is fine, they may say we arent going to hear this case.
DeleteWell the irony is clear. The role of the Court is supposed to be hear petitions. It was Aharon Barak who changed that to being activist and inventing petitions if no one brought any. So they can argue that since someone is challenging them, they have to hear it and since it's still legal for them to use "reasonable" since the new law hasn't been signed yet, they can strike it down. And yes, it would smack of self-interest but what do they care? If we were "enlightened" like them, we'd agree with them doing it.
ReplyDelete