23.03.25
Legal Reform: Pros and Cons Without Emotion A simple and short explanation:
The new proposal for the selection of judges, known as the Sahar-Levin Outline, was recently approved by the Knesset’s Constitution Committee for second and third readings.
The purpose of the proposal is to change the composition of the Committee for the Selection of Judges so that it includes nine judges, the President of the Supreme Court and two additional Supreme Court justices to be chosen by the panel of judges.
The Minister of Justice will appoint the chairman of the committee and another minister to be appointed by the government, two MKs, one from the coalition and one from the opposition, two public representatives who are lawyers with the credentials of a Supreme Court judge (at least 10 years of experience as a lawyer) to be chosen by the coalition and the opposition. According to the outline for the selection of judges for all instances, a simple majority is required.
However, the election of a judge to the Supreme Court will require a majority that includes at least one member chosen by the coalition and one member chosen by the opposition.
The outline also includes a tie-breaking mechanism: in the event of a prolonged disagreement, each political party will submit a list of three candidates and the other party will choose from among them. This mechanism is intended to prevent paralysis in the selection process.
The new proposal’s solutions:
1. Balance between the branches of government – the proposal maintains the involvement of the judiciary, which carries out the selection process so that no one party has complete control
2. Broader representation – adding two public representatives and anchoring representation from the opposition ensure that the process will include informed voices, and not just the government or court’s position
3. Reducing dependence on the existing court – the new mechanism reduces the situation in which sitting judges themselves determine the composition of the Supreme Court, which increases openness to judges with different legal systems
4. Transparency and political predictability – the clear rules regarding a tie-breaking mechanism may reduce prolonged political crises and prevent paralysis in the process of appointing judges
5. Requirement for broad consensus in appointing judges to the Supreme Court – the obligation to include at least one representative from the coalition and one from the opposition in the selection of a Supreme Court judge prevents unilateralism and creates Balancing different legal methods
6. Maintaining professional quality – elected public representatives must be experienced lawyers, which reduces the risk of purely political appointments at the expense of professional connections
7. Preventing paralysis in decisions – In the event of a continuing disagreement, the alternative mechanism (a list of three candidates from each side) ensures that judges can be appointed without reaching a deadlock.
Summary: Despite these advantages, there is criticism of the proposal, mainly from those who see it as an attempt to increase political influence on the judicial system. Ultimately, the proposal is seen as an attempt to balance different factors, but some fear that it will give the government too much power over the judicial system and harm its independence.
Author: Attorney with 30 years of experience in the Israeli legal system (Author 5)
We would love to hear your opinions because every opinion is important to us.
Join us on Facebook: amechad israel
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61554755348135
Facebook group:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2053580788428074
Our group on Telegram:
Civil Compass Association. Legislation for the Future of Israel.
Two posts “in favor of reform” that explain the principle of seniority and the increase in the threshold required for filing a case with the High Court (High Court involvement).
A. Seniority Principle
https://amechad.info/…/%d7%a6%d7%95%d7%a8%d7%9a-%d7%9c…
B. Increasing the threshold required to file a petition (appeal) to the High Court (right Standing)
https://amechad.info/…/%d7%a6%d7%95%d7%a8%d7%9a-%d7%9c…
C. Opposition to reform: The High Court cannot invalidate a law called “Law Yesod”
https://amechad.info/…/%d7%a8%d7%a4%d7%95%d7%a8%d7%9e…
D. Opposition to the change to the composition of the selection committee Judges
https://amechad.info/…/%d7%94%d7%a6%d7%a2%d7%aa-%d7%97…/
לַחֲלוֹק: