DistantNews
Support us
🇮🇱 Israel /Crime & Justice

High Court Questions Justice Minister's Refusal to Work With Supreme Court President

From Jerusalem Post · () English

Translated from English and summarized by DistantNews. Read the original for the full story.

At a glance

News Named sources Context piece
  • The High Court of Justice is scrutinizing Justice Minister Yariv Levin's refusal to cooperate with Supreme Court President Isaac Amit.
  • Levin argues Amit's appointment is invalid, citing procedural issues and a lack of official gazetting and signature.
  • Justices questioned Levin's stance, suggesting it could paralyze judicial appointments and questioning the logic of his arguments.

The High Court of Justice on Wednesday pressed Justice Minister Yariv Levin's attorney, Yoram Sheftel, over the minister's controversial refusal to recognize Supreme Court President Isaac Amit. This legal battle, brought before the court by the Zulat Institute for Equality and Human Rights, centers on Levin's assertion that Amit's appointment is invalid. Levin claims the Judicial Selection Committee session where Amit was chosen lacked a quorum and that the appointment was not properly published or signed, effectively boycotting the Supreme Court president.

If Levin’s quorum argument is correct, would that not mean the minister knowingly published appointments he believed were illegal?

· Justice Ofer GrosskopfQuestioning the minister's actions regarding the validity of appointments made during the same committee meeting.

Justices on the panel, including Ofer Grosskopf and Yechiel Kasher, repeatedly challenged Levin's arguments. They pointed out the inconsistency of Levin publishing other appointments from the same committee meeting while simultaneously claiming it lacked a quorum. Furthermore, the court questioned how Levin's position would grant a minority of committee members the power to paralyze its work. Justice Alex Stein highlighted the circular logic in Levin's argument that he could not act because he had not acted, particularly regarding the gazetting and signing of the appointment.

Levin’s position would effectively give a veto to a minority of committee members, who could refuse to attend a meeting and thereby paralyze the committee’s work.

· Justice Yechiel KasherWarning about the potential consequences of the justice minister's stance on judicial appointments.

This case strikes at the heart of judicial governance in Israel. Levin's stance, if upheld, could grant the justice minister undue influence over the judiciary's leadership, undermining the independence of the Supreme Court. The court's skepticism suggests a strong inclination to compel Levin to cooperate, recognizing the potential for significant disruption to judicial administration and the rule of law. The outcome will have profound implications for the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches.

Under Levin’s position, a law approved by the Knesset would fail to enter into force if the

· Justice Alex SteinPressing the minister's attorney on the implications of his legal arguments.
About this summary

Originally published by Jerusalem Post in English. Translated, summarized, and contextualized automatically by DistantNews, with a note on how the source frames the story. Not individually reviewed before publishing. How this works.

More Stories

From Our Blog