“If I am not the one deciding – then we will change the rules”

In September, the Supreme Court ordered the Minister to fulfill his duty to convene the Committee because the system cannot be paralyzed. Since then, the Minister has convened the committee, but refused to appoint the Supreme Court President. Now, the Court has ordered him to do so.

Photo by Chaim Goldberg/Flash90

Following a Supreme Court ruling mandating that Minister of Justice Yariv Levin convene the Judicial Selection Committee to appoint the Supreme Court President, Minister Levin wrote: “the Supreme Court is leaving the Knesset and the Government with no choice but to act, at this time, in order to restore its powers to normal levels... They left us no choice, it cannot continue like this…”

It appears that Minister Levin’s message could have been formulated much more succinctly. Something along the lines of “If I am not the one who decides – we will change the rules of the game.”

Indeed, this one sentence applies to his conduct for nearly two years now, and it applies to a variety of key figures: Appointing the President of the Supreme Court, appointing justices to the Supreme Court, and appointing the Ombudsman for judges.

The common thread between these appointments: if the Minister’s candidate is not accepted – no one will be appointed. And if the law stands in the way? We will change it.

For the first time in the history of the Supreme Court, for more than a year and two months, there has been no permanent president. Why? Because the Minister of Justice’s candidates for the position of justices in the Supreme Court do not have a majority in the Judicial Selection Committee. Therefore, rather than accepting the decision of the Committee, the Committee was simply not convened to elect a President.

In September, the Supreme Court ordered the Minister to fulfill his duty to convene the Committee because the system cannot be paralyzed. It’s that simple. The Supreme Court ruled the obvious – that the Minister certainly has discretion when to convene the Committee and also to try and reach a consensus. But that cannot be the only consideration. Therefore, it was determined that the Minister must publish the names of the candidates in the official records and convene the Committee for the purpose of electing a president.

Since then, the Minister has been systematically abusing his position as head of the Committee.  

Countless delay tactics and excuses have been given for not selecting the President of the Supreme Court: First, publishing all the names of the justices as candidates, thousands of ‘reservations’ filed against the candidates, setting the agenda according to which the vice president would be selected before the president, a request for a live broadcast of the Committee meetings, and outright refusing to put the selection of the President to a vote.

Experts were even invited to the last meeting to give their opinion on the principle of seniority, as if it were a Knesset committee and not the Judicial Selection Committee, where outside experts have never been invited before.  

Such tactics do not seem to have worked. Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled last Thursday that:

“Noting that the Minister of Justice’s actions thus far do not fulfill the principled determination in the ruling – the obligation to bring the selection of the President of the Supreme Court to a vote by the members of the Judicial Selection Committee ... we instruct that the Minister of Justice must bring the selection of the President of the Supreme Court to a vote by the members of the Judicial Selection Committee by January 16, 2025.”

This time there is a clear court ruling, instructing the Minister to exercise his authority as required by law. Every citizen must respect a court ruling, even if it is not to their liking. This is the basic principle of the rule of law.

In a post he wrote last night, Minister Levin spoke again about a “compromise”: “The fair compromise proposal that I proposed to the justices is still on the table,” and in his words, “the path of agreement and dialogue was and remains the correct and preferable path.”

But what kind of compromise is this exactly? That the Minister’s representative will serve as a justice on the Supreme Court. This, while completely ignoring the committee's task.  

This is not a compromise. This is control. And this has nothing to do with conservative or liberal candidates. There is currently already a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Levin wants to appoint “his” people. Again – “If I'm not the one who decides – we’ll change the rules.”

The headlines announced this morning that “the judicial overhaul is returning.” As if the government is lacking other areas that are in dire need of its attention.

The truth is that the overhaul never stopped. It is here, walking among us every day and every week, in a blitz of dozens of private bills, all of which have one goal – consolidating power over key institutions that are perceived as neutral and professional, that serve the public, or that limit the powers of the government—whether the judicial system, the media, or other gatekeepers and mechanisms of checks and balances.  

Now the proposal to change the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee—perhaps the most controversial component of the 2023 judicial overhaul initiatives—is also back on the table.

Here we must remember that, above all else, this is an amendment to a Basic Law—laws of quasi-constitutional status in Israel. A change in the rules of the game while playing. An attempt by an elected official to use legislation to avoid implementing a High Court ruling.

There is only one name for this: It is an abuse of authority. Let’s not go back down this dangerous path.

This article was published in the Times of Israel.