What the judicial reform controversy is really all about?
By David Harsanyi, FrontPage Magazine August 9, 2023
President Joe Biden has reportedly asked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stop pushing through a “divisive” judicial overhaul bill amid protests.
This is the same Biden, incidentally, who crammed through a massive, highly “divisive,” generational spending bill with zero votes from the opposition; the same guy who regularly rules by unconstitutional executive diktats; and the same guy who has done more to delegitimize the Supreme Court than any president in modern history.
In any event, the president is concerned. As is The New York Times, which reports, “The Israeli Parliament passed a deeply contentious law limiting the Supreme Court’s ability to overturn decisions made by government ministers.” What the Times means is that there is a new law limiting the judiciary’s ability to unilaterally declare legislation “unconstitutional” without using any legal justification whatsoever.
Because as it stands, Israel has a robust anti-democratic system overseen by a high court that is probably the most powerful judiciary in the free world. Netanyahu’s judicial reforms — only a tiny piece has passed — would bring Israel back all the way to 1995 when the “judiciary revolution” imbued the court with supreme power over legislation. The alleged authoritarian “backsliding” by Israel’s “far-right” government would likely create a far more “democratic” system.
The judiciary primacy might work if the Israeli court’s decisions were grounded in some kind of statutory authority, traditional legal framework, or even existing regulation and law. But there is no Israeli constitution. The court’s decisions are often arbitrary, politically expedient, constantly evolving, and sometimes contradictory. The court regularly blocks laws passed by center-right governments simply because judges claim policy is unreasonable.
Why only center-right governments? Because the entrenched judges (with their allies in the Israeli bar) appoint their own successors in perpetuity. Imagine the American left’s outlook if the Supreme Court’s originalists could simply tap their own replacements without any input from senators or the president.
Moreover, for the left, “democracy” can mean hyper-majoritarianism or judicial tyranny. Whatever works. Depends on the day. What am I saying? Democrats will argue that limiting judicial supremacy in Israel is an attack on “democracy” while at the same time claiming SCOTUS is engaged in judicial supremacy for showing deference to the Constitution and handing back issues like abortion to voters. Calvinball all the way down.
Of course, if the Israeli Supreme Court were packed with right-wingers instead of left-wingers, American media, the Democratic Party, and the protestors would be on the reform side. None of this has anything to do with governing principles, justice, norms, or “democracy.” Like those destroying the American judiciary at home, it’s about power.
The Israeli right is also about power. I’m not naive. But right now, the reforms they support are far better aligned with the norms of a functioning “democracy” than the ones in place. A person reading headlines in the American press might not know that.