Levin nominates all Supreme Court judges for president in effort to stall appointment
Justice minister claims court is coercing appointment of new chief justice; opponents accuse him of shameful behavior, say he still intends to ‘crush independence of legal system’
Jeremy Sharon is The Times of Israel’s legal affairs and settlements reporter
In a none-too-subtle display of resentment and indignation, Justice Minister Yariv Levin nominated every single serving Supreme Court justice for president of the court on Sunday night, and invited the general public to submit reservations about every justice, in a tactic apparently designed to further drag out the process of appointing a new head of the judiciary.
It now appears that the Judicial Selection Committee which appoints the president of the court, and which Levin chairs, will have to deliberate every one of the 12 serving justices and the likely deluge of objections that will be submitted by opponents of the court before being able to hold a vote on an appointment.
Levin has doggedly refused to appoint a new Supreme Court president since the last president, Esther Hayut, retired in October last year. This, as part of an effort to steer the court in a more conservative direction. He has refused to call a vote on a new president since there is a majority on the Judicial Selection Committee to appoint liberal Justice Isaac Amit, based on the longstanding seniority system which Levin opposes.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court acting, in its function as the High Court of Justice, ordered Levin to hold a vote, saying his discretion as justice minister was not without boundaries and his insistence on unanimity in the committee, while citing the ongoing war, gave him an unlawful veto over the decision.
The deadline for publishing the candidates names for the position was Sunday. There is now a 45-day evaluation period before any vote can be held, although it appears that Levin will try and stretch the deliberations out beyond that time.
Sources close to Levin implied that proceedings would begin with Justice Khaled Kabub, who has a series of allegations of ethics violations against him, while supposed controversies pertaining to other justices could be raised in an apparent effort to embarrass the court.
In his letter announcing the candidates, Levin denounced what he said was the court’s “coercive” decisions, which he said contravened the need for “unity and responsibility” during the war.
MK Karine Elharrar, the opposition’s representative on the Judicial Selection Committee, and the Israel Bar Association, which has two representatives on the committee, described Levin’s decision as “shameful,” while insisting that the minister’s tactics wouldn’t ultimately stop a new president being appointed.
In his letter late Sunday night publicizing the names of all 12 current Supreme Court justices, Levin noted specifically that the law enables any member of the public to file a submission to the Judicial Selection Committee explaining why they believe a specific candidate would not be suitable for the role within 20 days of publication of the names.
It appears that Levin intends to deliberate at length on such submissions for each candidate so as to further delay appointing a president.
Levin has insisted that in a time of war, the president of the court must be chosen “with broad agreement,” although his effort to avoid appointing Amit as president long predates the current conflict and was part of his highly contentious judicial overhaul program, which dominated the political agenda before the October 7 atrocities.
In its decision on petitions against his conduct, the High Court ruled that although Levin as the justice minister had a certain amount of discretion over the timing of a vote and the need for consensus, that discretion was not unlimited, and the 11 months in which the presidency was vacant exceeded the boundaries of that discretion.
Shortly before the final ruling, Levin proposed allowing strict conservative justice Yosef Elron to be appointed president for the one year remaining of his tenure before he retires, although that would have scuttled the seniority system, in place since the court was founded, whereby the most veteran justice on the bench automatically becomes the next president. The system is designed to avoid the politicization of the court presidency.
Alternatively, he proposed that one of two hardline conservative academics who were the ideological architects of the judicial overhaul be appointed to the court, although neither of them have served as judges.
Acting Supreme Court President Uzi Vogelman, the head of the liberal bloc on the committee, rejected both proposals.
“The justices of the Supreme Court rejected all the compromise proposals I offered and forced [the committee] by court order to deal with this issue, at the current time,” Levin complained in his letter to the members of the Judicial Selection Committee on Sunday.
“All of this [was done] with the idea that they could force the appointment of their president through a process which was tainted by a severe conflict of interest and which was fundamentally illegitimate,” he fumed.
“Whoever tries to take the crown and forcibly put it on his own head will not deserve public trust and will not be recognized as someone who was chosen lawfully and in an accepted manner.”
Following the court order earlier this month, Levin vowed to boycott the incoming court president, a step that would further gum up the workings of the judiciary.
Elharrar slammed Levin’s Sunday night announcement.
“The behavior of Minister Levin is shameful. This is how a minister who behaves lawlessly trolls an entire country,” she wrote on X.
“Despite everything, Levin can’t escape. A permanent president of the Supreme Court will be appointed.”
And Amit Becher, the head of the Israel Bar Association, had a similar message, describing Levin’s announcement as “shameful” and saying that the minister had lost his way.
“The announcement [shows] contempt for the High Court ruling and the justices of the court. His behavior will be remembered as an eternal disgrace,” he said.
“The minister’s true intent was and remains to thwart the ruling and continue in his attempt to crush the independence of the legal system and democracy.”
