High Court justices challenge Levin over refusal to appoint Supreme Court president, judges

High Court justices challenge Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s position that there is nothing to compel him to hold a vote in the Judicial Selection Committee for the appointment of a new Supreme Court president, and question whether the timeframe for his stated reason – that at a time of war such appointments need unanimity – has now run its course.

“We are in July 2024, many months since this letter [expressing Levin’s opinion] was issued and many months since the beginning of war,” Justice Yael Wilner points out to Levin’s legal representative during a court hearing on petitions demanding the court order the justice minister to appoint a new president.

Levin’s attorney, Tzion Amir, explains that Levin’s argument is that the new president of the court must be a unifier in the model of Otto von Bismarck who unified Germany, and not “surrender to pressures and societal winds and subjugate the executive branch to the judicial branch, which is what the petition [against Levin] does.”

Wilner responds skeptically, saying Levin’s position amounts to granting himself, as chairman of the committee, a veto over the appointment of a president “while in our system there is no veto.”

Justice Ofer Grosskopf also challenges Levin’s interpretation of the Law for the Courts, which the minister contends gives him discretion as to whether or not to fill a position on the Supreme Court, despite the law stating that if there is a need to appoint a judge then the minister must convene the committee.

“Is it possible there can be a doubt that there is a need to appoint a president [of the Supreme Court?” wonders Grosskopf.

Levin, who chairs the selection committee, has refused to allow a vote on the appointment of a new president of the Supreme Court ever since former president Esther Hayut retired in October, or even fill her seat on the bench and that of Anat Baron, who retired at the same time.