Judiciary adviser: Levin’s tactic to delay Supreme Court president vote ‘ridiculous’
Legal adviser to Israel Courts Administration says nominating justices for the position against their will violates administrative law, is ‘detached from reality’
Jeremy Sharon is The Times of Israel’s legal affairs and settlements reporter
The legal adviser to the Israel Courts Administration slammed Justice Minister Yariv Levin Sunday over the latter’s move to nominate all sitting Supreme Court justices for chief justice, including many who don’t want the job, a step widely seen as a tactic meant to delay making the selection.
The legal adviser, Barak Laser, said the idea that the Judicial Selection Committee could hold a hearing to discuss the candidacy of justices who were nominated for the position without their consent was “ridiculous” and had “no legal basis.”
Writing a letter to legal activist Attorney Shachar Ben Meir, who questioned Levin’s decision, Laser said that the minister’s proposal violated administrative law and had previously been deemed by the High Court of Justice to be invalid.
Laser’s position likely presages a dispute in the Judicial Selection Committee when it convenes at some point after November 6 to hold hearings on candidates.
Sources close to Levin pointed out in response that Laser was not the committee’s legal adviser, and argued that since he is himself a candidate for the judiciary, albeit not for the Supreme Court, there was a conflict of interest.
The director of the Israel Court’s Administration serves, however, as the committee secretary, and so the court’s administration’s legal adviser likely does have influence over the running of the forum.
Levin nominated all 12 serving justices in protest for being ordered by the Supreme Court (acting in its capacity as the High Court of Justice) to call a vote for a new president in short order.
The justice minister had refused to call a vote for 11 months since he did not have the votes in the committee to either stop the appointment of liberal justice Isaac Amit as the court’s president, or get conservative justice Yosef Elron appointed to the position.
Levin also included in the publication of the justices’ names a call for the general public to submit any reservations and objections they might have to any of the candidates, as is permitted under the law, for the Judicial Selection Committee to deliberate on.
The justice minister’s gambit was largely designed to further drag out the appointment process, and to try and embarrass the Supreme Court by publicly airing supposed controversies relating to some of the justices.
In Laser’s letter sent on Sunday, he said that nominating someone for a public position without their consent was simply not possible.
“These are ridiculous claims without legal foundation,” wrote the court’s administration’s legal adviser.
“The claim that you can appoint someone to a public position without their consent is not only detached from reality, but also contravenes the principles of administrative law which requires public trust in those who hold an office,” he continued.
Laser also insisted that it would not be possible to hear in the committee the written objections to candidates who did not consent to be nominated, and said those submissions would not be passed on to the members of the committee.
“We believe there is no legal basis to hear reservations submitted against someone whose candidacy is not pending before the committee — that’s the legal situation, and that’s also the long-established practice,” wrote Laser.
