Justice Mintz, for minority, alleges ruling ‘undermines basic democratic principles’

Justice David Mintz, in an opinion for the minority, slams former Supreme Court president Esther Hayut’s ruling striking down the reasonableness limitation law, describing her doctrine for doing so as “something out of nothing,” which “undermines basic democratic principles including the separation of powers.”

Mintz, a strongly conservative justice, says the court’s ability to review and strike down even regular legislation is “not based on strong foundations” and says there is “certainly no authority allowing for the court to deliberate the validity of a Basic Law” or to strike one down.

“Annulling a Basic Law based on an amorphous doctrine and an undefined formula carries a heavy price from a democratic point of view, certainly when it comes to an issue about which the court itself is in an ‘institutional conflict of interest,’” writes Mintz.

The justice argues further that the new law did not stop the court reviewing government and ministerial decisions with other judicial doctrines, “does not give [the government] complete and total discretion, and does not grant immunity for [its] decisions.”