Judges say they can only consider reasonableness law, not entire judicial overhaul

Hearing arguments of the petitioners for the High Court to strike down the reasonableness law, the justices challenge the assertion of Eliad Shraga, an attorney for the Movement of Quality Government in Israel, that they can take into account the government’s broader judicial overhaul program as a reason to strike down the legislation under review in court.

“Reasonableness isn’t the story here, they [the government] want to crush the judiciary, that’s the story, that’s what the war is about… They want to chuck out the attorney general, bring back [Shas] chief Aryeh Deri to the cabinet, and not convene the Judicial Selection Committee,” argues Shraga.

Justice Noam Sohlberg insists this is beyond the purview of the court.

“You’re wrapping things together things which are proposals, thoughts. We are judges; we cannot deal with what hasn’t happened,” says Sohlberg.

But Shraga also argues that the law itself should be struck down, not necessarily due its content, which he nevertheless calls “awful,” but because of what he describes as “the invasion” of the legislature into the realm of the judiciary.

“The mortal blow here is the blow to the independence of the court and the separation of powers which this law strikes,” argues Shraga.