Levin tells High Court he has the right not to hold vote on new chief justice
Jeremy Sharon is The Times of Israel’s legal affairs and settlements reporter

Justice Minister Yariv Levin has told the High Court of Justice that it has no right to intervene in his decision not to appoint a new president of the court and fill two empty seats on the bench, insisting that only he, as chairman of the Judicial Selection Committee which makes the appointments, has discretion over the selection process.
“These appointments must be done — in accordance with the instructions of the legislature and the minister’s policy and the clear public interest at times of war — only after broad agreement is reached within the committee for these appointments,” Levin’s private attorney contends in his response to petitions demanding that the positions be filled immediately.
Any other result, Levin contends, “would mean judicial reform in the customary system of appointing judges in Israel which has been in place for over 70 years, the implications of which are foundational changes of the balance established by the legislature between the different elements of the Judicial Selection Committee.”
That arrangement, contends Levin, means that as chairman of the committee, the justice minister has sole discretion over convening the committee, the identity of the candidates, and the timing of a vote on those candidates.
Levin has refused to appoint a new president of the High Court 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.
In February, the Movement for Quality Government in Israel filed a petition to the High Court asking it to order Levin to call votes on the appointments, arguing that his refusal to do so violates his constitutional obligation to fill the positions and was motivated by “inappropriate and political considerations designed to damage the independence of the judiciary and Israel’s system of checks and balances on government authority.”

The court issued an interim order against Levin last month ordering him to explain why it should not grant the petitioners’ request, a step indicating that the court believes the case has merit.
Levin concludes in his response: “The status of the justice minister as chairman of the committee and the authorities deriving from that are the only power available to the justice minister as a representative of the executive branch in the Judicial Selection Committee…
“It is this power which the petitioner, for the first time and in an unprecedented manner, requests to revoke from his [the justice minister’s] hands and give over to the court, with the goal of choosing a new Supreme Court president with a majority of just five committee members,” Levin argues, referring to a split in the committee on the issue.