High Court says both sides need to compromise on appointment of Supreme Court president

The High Court of Justice instructs Justice Minister Levin and petitioners against his refusal to appoint a new Supreme Court president to enter into dialogue in order to find a breakthrough for the current, unprecedented impasse in which there has been no permanent court president for the last nine months.

Justice Yael Wilner says that a compromise process is necessary due to “the complexity and sensitivity of the issue.”

The court instructs Levin to update it on the progress of this dialogue by August 8.

“Sometimes a bad compromise is better than a good ruling, and this is the situation,” quips Justice Alex Stein after the decision read out in court.

Levin has refused to appoint a replacement for former president Esther Hayut, who retired in October, insisting that such an appointment needs unanimity on the Judicial Selection Committee, which he chairs, at a time of war. Even prior to the war, however, Levin eschewed the traditional method of appointing the most senior justice on the court as president in order to appoint a conservative candidate.

The petitioners argue that Levin has no authority to refrain from calling a vote on a new president, and that the 1981 Interpretation Law requires those holding statutory authority to exercise that authority “with appropriate speed.”