Press Release

IDI Experts on the New Levin-Saar Proposal to Change the Judicial Selection Committee

| Written By:

In a statement following publication of the new initiative released by Minister of Justice Yariv Levin and Foreign Minister Gideon Saar, IDI experts weigh in on the new proposal to change the Judicial Selection Committee.

Photo: Michael Dimenshtein/GPO

In a statement following publication of the new initiative released by Minister of Justice Yariv Levin and Foreign Minister Gideon Saar, with inputs from bereaved fathers Yizhar Shai and Dedi Simhi, IDI President Yohanan Plesner emphasized the vital importance of attempts at bridge-building in this complex period. “It is crucial that any constitutional changes be adopted by broad consensus – especially after October 7th, and everything Israelis have sacrificed since. However, the two ministers’ proposal does not reflect a ‘historic compromise,’ broad consensus, a serious process of consultation or a genuine attempt to end the current constitutional crisis by way of compromise. Rather, it is another one-sided initiative of the coalition to politicize the judicial system without securing the basic rights of Israelis. The anticipated result of this initiative will be to flood the system with judges who are more political, less independent, and less professional.”

Regarding the proposal for changing the Judicial Selection Committee

IDI constitutional experts pointed out that the proposed changes to the composition and decision-making processes of the judicial selection committee will lead to the complete politicization of the judicial system from the Supreme Court down to the lowest courts in the land. They pointed to a number of specific flaws in the proposal:

  • The proposal would grant veto power to coalition and oppositions representatives over selection of all judges in Israel (from the Supreme Court justices down to the local courts), making the professional advancement of judges contingent on the blessing of politicians.
  • The proposal does not specify the process of appointing the president of the Supreme Court, who will likely be chosen solely on the basis of political considerations instead of the present principle of seniority.
  • In the case of deadlock in the committee, the proposed mechanism to break it forces selection of at least one candidate proposed by each political side. This is liable to lead to political deals in which the most extreme and least qualified candidates are appointed to the highest court in the land.
  • The current representatives of the Bar Association will be replaced by politically appointed “professional representatives” - one from the coalition and one from the opposition. This will have the effect of transforming the current professional, independent committee into a political body.

Regarding the principles proposed for amending Basic Laws:

Defining a special procedure for passing and amending Basic Laws (laws of quasi-constitutional status) must be at the heart of any serious constitutional reform effort. So too is a definition of the scope of judicial review. Unfortunately, the proposal is specific on the latter and extremely vague on the former.

Specifically:

  • The proposal does not spell out the procedure and special majority for enacting and amending Basic Laws, which is the key vulnerability of Israel’s constitutional framework exposed by the judicial overhaul.
  • The proposal bars judicial review of Basic Laws and severely limits judicial review of regular legislation. In practice, it will be possible to legislate anything under the header “Basic Law”, including laws that harm the Jewish or democratic character of the State of Israel.
  • The proposal includes a welcome initiative to codify the civil rights of criminal defendants. However, the proposed framework provides no protection for more basic rights such as equality before the law, freedom of expression and freedom of protest.

Plesner added: “Once Justice Yitzhak Amit is appointed President of the Supreme Court, in accordance with the current Supreme Court decision, it would be wise for political leaders on both sides of the aisle to come together and commence a true constitutional process for the betterment of all Israelis. As a first step all one-sided initiatives to change the character of our democratic regime should be halted. Then, a thorough and professional consultative process should be initiated to build broad consensus for constitutional reform, including a bill of rights and proper checks and balances. This is all the more vital after two years of internal turmoil, partisan wrangling, and considerable bloodshed.”