MK Hasoon attacks Shaked: 'Blatant meddling'

MK Akram Hasoon responds to Minister Shaked: 'Only in totalitarian and dark regimes did Justice Ministers dare intimidate Supreme Court.'

Mordechai Sones,

Hasoon
Hasoon
Flash 90

MK Akram Hasoon (Kulanu), who petitioned the Supreme Court against the Nationality Law, today criticized Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked's comments on petitions filed against the Law.

Hasoon refers to an article published by Shaked, which states "the idea that a chapter in the constitution is unconstitutional is already absurd, almost like arguing a chapter in the Bible is not biblical."

Shaked also added, "Recently, the Supreme Court rejected the petition against the Disengagement Law (which is essentially an amendment to the Knesset Basic Law), but the statements accompanying this rejection were not encouraging, to say the least."

"There is no doubt that Mrs. Shaked's article is aimed directly at the Supreme Court justices before whom petitions on the Nationality Law were placed," says Hasoon, "because justices referring to the Supreme Court ruling on the Impeachment Law said the Supreme Court would intervene in constitutional amendments where there are core violations, and a core violation was defined as damaging the foundations of the State as a Jewish and democratic state.

"With all due respect to the comparison made by the Minister, according to which intervention in the constitution is like intervening in the Bible, the comparison is misplaced. The Bible was written by God and the Constitution was written by the mortals, the mortals are wrong and God is not (unless the Minister has a different position).

"The attempt to use God's words as leverage for warnings and exhortations directed by the Minister at the Supreme Court is a cynical attempt and it would be better for her if she didn't do so. The Justice Minister, who also serves as Chairman of the Committee for Appointing Judges, cannot take active part in a matter about to be decided and adjudicated for discussion on the judicial docket.

"Statements of this kind contain very thick messages and hints that are on the verge of not being allowed. The same is true of statements that the Supreme Court's remarks expressed in the judgment are 'not encouraging', which constitute blatant meddling in the Court's independence and an attempt to exert undue pressure on judicial discretion. Such cases of blatant intervention might take place in totalitarian and dark regimes," concluded Hasoon.








top