Opposition files unprecedented 71,023 objections to controversial judicial overhaul law

Opposition parties file an unprecedented 71,023 objections to the government’s highly controversial judicial overhaul law in the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee against a bill that would change the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee and how it appoints judges.

The number of objections corresponds to the date of Hamas’s October 7 invasion and atrocities in 2023, which the opposition MKs filing them say is designed to “underline the absurdity of advancing a controversial law at a time of war” and when “hostages are still being held captive by Hamas.”

The number of objections is unprecedented in the history of the Knesset, and is designed to serve as a type of filibuster to stall the progress of the bill which, once approved in committee, requires only its final back-to-back second and third readings in the Knesset plenum.

The gambit will however likely be parried by Constitution Committee Chairman MK Simcha Rothman through a parliamentary tool to bundle batches of objections together to overcome such tactics.

Voting on the objections will begin tomorrow morning, and it seems likely therefore that the committee will only be able to approve the substance of the bill next week.

A source close to Justice Minister Yariv Levin says the bill may be brought to its final votes in the Knesset plenum next week, although if the committee only votes on the clauses of the bill next week, bringing it to the plenum the same week would be unlikely.

The opposition, as well as the attorney general and three former Supreme Court presidents, have strongly criticized the bill, saying it would politicize the judicial selection process and therefore undermine the independence of the judiciary.

Democrats MK and Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee member Gilad Kariv describes the bill as “the very heart of the regime coup,” in reference to the government’s judicial overhaul agenda.

“This is an extreme and unbalanced bill that poses a real and present threat to the independence of the courts and gives the justice minister dramatic control over the selection of judges,” says Kariv.

Rothman, Levin and other proponents of the bill argue that the judiciary has too much control over judicial appointments and that giving politicians greater control would redress what they claim is an imbalanced reality in which the government has difficulty appointing judges it favors.