However, the “reforms” promoted by Levin and Netanyahu do not attempt to fix the judicial system, but to destroy its independence and turn Israel into a democracy on paper, in which there is actually only one authority – the government. By the way, it can be said that while Levin at least presents a consistent position, Netanyahu – who is in a conflict of interest screaming to the heavens – changed his opinion about the independence of the court by 180 degrees following the filing of the indictment against him.
My grandfather was indeed one of the sharpest and most prominent critics of the constitutional revolution and the activism of the Supreme Court under the leadership of Aharon Barak, but he believed that “every generalization is true up to a certain limit”. He is considered on the one hand a conservative judge, and on the other hand a bold and trailblazing one – when the circumstances demanded it – and I have no doubt that if he were alive, he would have raised a determined voice against these “reforms”, and this can be seen from a study of his judgments and his extensive legal writing.
First, regarding the legislation of a superseding clause by a majority of 61 – my grandfather, who witnessed the disintegration of the Weimar Republic, understood very well that a democracy in which the tyranny of the majority exists is not a real democracy, and it is clear that he would have opposed the enactment of a superseding clause in the wording proposed in the “reform” – as a result of which the government could harm the human rights of Residents of the country, without any legal restrictions.
Accordingly, Landoy was the first judge to recognize that the principle of equality is a high constitutional principle in our country, and this despite the fact that it does not appear in any legislation, in a statement that entered our legal canon:
“Even without relying on a written constitution that explicitly states the principle of equality of all before the law – we do not have such an explicit clause, neither in a written constitution nor in the “armored” section of the Basic Law, and even so this idea, which is not written in a book about me, is from the nose of our entire constitutional regime.”
The precedent-setting Bergman High Court, from which the quote above is taken, raised even more serious questions about the status of the Basic Laws compared to ordinary legislation of the Knesset, and as a result Sevi wrote an article in 1971 entitled “Constitution as Supreme Law for the State of Israel?”. In the article, which excels in foresight, Sevi claimed that the The time to hold a balanced and serious discussion about our constitutional regime (when he certainly did not mean the kidnapping that Levin and Netanyahu are currently carrying out), including a discussion regarding the authority of the Knesset to enact a constitution (or basic laws, which will have the status of supreme law). Landoi believed that the proper body to uphold the constitution as the supreme law of the country – is the court, not the Knesset:
“It is clear that self-monitoring by the parliament cannot be the necessary brake against the danger of changes in the fundamentals of the constitutional regime by a simple majority vote in the parliament […] I believe that the court will be able to fulfill this honorable role as it currently supervises the legality of secondary legislation of its kind and the legality of the acts of the executive government. The court’s special ability to fulfill this role lies, of course, in its independent status, which shields it from external influences. Furthermore, we are not talking about matters involving political considerations, but rather the application of mechanical framework instructions, by way of legal interpretation, which the courts rely on by nature of their creation.”
Regarding the cancellation of the reason for reasonableness – in 1953, the panel of three future presidents of the Supreme Court – Judges Shimon Agrant (another great judge whose name Levin also uses while misleading the public), Yoel Zussman and Sebi – sat in the famous High Court regarding Kol Ha’am. The petition revolved around An order by the Minister of the Interior to close newspapers that were published against the government and encouraged conscription. In its ruling, the Supreme Court made it clear to the government that there are limits to its power. In the ruling, written by Judge Agrant, the court explained that since the State of Israel was built on democratic foundations, and was founded in the Declaration of Independence On the foundations of freedom and the guarantee of freedom of conscience for all its citizens – freedom of expression is a supreme right in the country. Therefore, the test that is suitable for examining the closure of the newspaper, only in its existence will the principle of freedom of expression be withdrawn, is the “test of admissions of imminent harm to public peace”. Since the judges determined that in this case the “danger” did not exist The closest to public peace” to which the Minister of the Interior argued, they ruled that his decision was given without authority.
If the Voice of the People case were brought before the High Court of Justice today, it can be assumed that the judges would have annulled the Interior Minister’s decision on the grounds of implausibility (and Levin and his friends would probably call them “leftists” and “a branch of Meretz”). But this is only a matter of semantics, because that lack of authority equals lack of reasonableness.
It should be clarified that Landoy believed that the expansion of the reason for reasonableness that came in a later ruling (High Court of Yellow Pages) is wrong, but it is absolutely clear that the elimination of the reason for reasonableness – as an ultimate and basic tool for monitoring the legality of an administrative act, was used frequently “in the court of the legal giants Landoy and Agarnet” – He was strongly opposed.
As for changing the method of appointing judges and making it political – my grandfather believed in the importance of a strong and independent judicial system, and he wrote about this in his article from 1971: “In our country, the Knesset has done a great deal by guaranteeing in law the independence of judges and appointments by a non-political body. We must be ultra-Orthodox Very much for the existence of these arrangements, which are among the basics of our constitutional regime. I have no doubt that they will not be able to withstand the burden associated with imposing a political role on the court.”
The concern expressed by Sebi is precisely about a proposal of the type proposed by Levin and Netanyahu, according to which the government will control the process of appointing judges, will make it a comfortable breeding ground for foreign influences and will strengthen the process of the executive authority taking over the judiciary.
As for changing the seniority system for electing the president of the Supreme Court – Levin-Netanyahu are even promoting a specific proposal to change the seniority system for electing the president of the Supreme Court, so that it would allow them to appoint as president a judge who does not serve on it at all. Regarding this topic, I will end with a story: in 2005, when Judge Barak was about to retire, political parties tried to prevent the appointment of Judge Binish as president, while changing the seniority system (less blatantly than the current plan). And so my 93-year-old grandfather said to his friend Judge Yitzhak Milanov in this matter:
“You are good at driving. I am asking you that if Binish’s appointment is in jeopardy, drive me in the wheelchair to demonstrate against this as a single demonstration in front of the court.”
I have no doubt that if he were alive today, my grandfather would even come to demonstrate against the proposals to destroy Levin’s and Netanyahu’s justice system, and encourage every citizen in the country to do so.
Adam Johnson – on behalf of Ada Landoi-Spitzer, Shlomit Landoi-Johnson, Tamar Landoi and their families