Israel’s Supreme Court on Tuesday told Justice Minister Yariv Levin that unless he convenes the Judicial Selection Committee as soon as possible, it would force the issue. In doing so, they rejected a compromise proposal Levin had offered on Monday.
If Levin failed to convene the committee in the coming days, the court would issue a ruling forcing him to do so at “the start of the legal season” on Sept. 1, it said.
Convening the committee is necessary to choose a new Supreme Court president and select new justices to fill three vacancies on the court’s 15-judge bench. The court is currently led by acting Supreme Court President Uzi Fogelman.
Levin had offered a compromise proposal whereby Justice Yosef Elron, considered a conservative, would be appointed as chief justice for one year, following which Yitzhak Amit would serve for the next three years.
The proposal simultaneously expressed the government’s opposition to the rule whereby the most senior judge is automatically promoted to chief justice, and to Amit, who is considered a liberal.
Reacting to the court’s decision, Levin’s staff said it shows just how much judicial reform is needed, as the justices are attempting to “completely take over the committee, refusing to accept anyone who isn’t one of their own.”
Reforming the committee was a key plank of the government’s judicial reform plan, derailed last year due to a well-orchestrated anti-reform movement that included mass protests and acts of civil disobedience.
Currently, the committee comprises three Supreme Court judges, two government ministers, two Knesset members and two members of the Israel Bar Association.
As seven members are needed to approve a candidate and the three judges vote as a bloc, the court has effective veto power over nominees since Israel Bar representatives typically vote with the justices.
Those in favor of reform, such as Levin, who spearheaded the reform effort on behalf of the government, argue that the current system is self-selecting, putting judges in charge of choosing their successors.
Levin, who as justice minister controls when the Judicial Selection Committee meets, has refused to convene it so as to prevent the appointment of yet more liberal justices.
Those in favor of the current system argue that politicians already have input in selecting judges, providing a balance between politicians and “professionals,” i.e. the judges. To give politicians still more power over the process would politicize it, they argue.
Russell Shalev, an attorney in the legal department of the Kohelet Policy Forum, a Jerusalem-based think tank that helped draft the government’s reform legislation proposals, told JNS during the height of reform that the judges’ veto leads to homogeneity, blocking “independent thinkers, bold thinkers who want to challenge the system with new paradigms.”
There’s also a lack of transparency. In Israel, “politicians have almost no time to actually speak with the candidates,” added Shalev.
The Supreme Court president has in the past ordered candidates not to meet with political members of the Judicial Selection Committee. “It’s a way to maintain control,” he said.
To address this, the reform called for public hearings.
It’s also untrue that giving judicial appointments over to elected representatives is undemocratic, he argued.
“Kohelet did an extensive study and we found that in 31 of 35 leading democratic countries, the elected officials, whether it’s the government or the parliament, select the Supreme Court or constitutional court judges,” he said.
