Several justices ask difficult questions of the attorney general’s representative, Aner Helman, in response to his assertion that the court should rule that the recusal law will only come into affect at a later stage. Helman argued that doing so will circumvent the personal manner in which the law was legislated for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s benefit, and thus make the law more legitimate.
“Let’s say we delay implementation — doesn’t this create an unclear situation in the period before it comes into effect [as to whether the prime minister can be ordered to recuse himself]?” asks Justice Anat Baron.
“We would need to use interpretative tools to decide the issue. Why is that a better situation?” adds Justice Yael Wilner.
“Maybe it is a good idea to advance the implementation of the law to avoid this uncertainty,” chimes in Justice Alex Stein.
Helman sticks to his guns, however, arguing that the personal aspect of the law is so egregious as to justify delaying implementation.
“There is a phenomenon now in which Basic Laws are passed for personal reasons. They [the Knesset] are turning the Basic Laws into modeling clay,” he contends.