Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann has once again brought upon himself the wrath of the Supreme Court, for daring to propose restrictions on what issues may be considered justiciable.



Friedmann has asked his assistants and Justice Ministry professionals to look into legislation that would prevent the Supreme Court from hearing appeals on certain matters.  The off-limits issues would pertain to government policy in diplomatic, security and budgetary matters.



"The question is whether every issue has to be in the purview of the Supreme Court," Friedmann explained in a speech last week.  "I believe that for everything to be justiciable with no oversight is destructive... For instance, it would not have been hard, in 1981, to find some professors to claim that the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor was against international law.  But is it conceivable that the Supreme Court should deal with such a topic? Can't the government make its own decision in this matter?"



It is not clear whether the preliminary investigations of the proposed legislation will lead to an actual legislative proposal.  Justice Ministry officials said the proposal may well be found to be unworkable.



Nonetheless, Supreme Court justices past and present, and other public figures, ripped into Friedmann for merely thinking of such an idea.  Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch said, "Friedmann is bringing us superficial legislation that falls upon us like a deluge, without prior public debate... The claim that the Supreme Court is trying to wrest authorities from the Knesset is groundless and misleading." (See below regarding the Arutz-7 law revoked by the Knesset.)



Labor MKs said they would certainly object to legislation of the type Friedmann is promoting, and that if the government supports it, it could lead to a coalition crisis. "It has become clear," said Labor MK Shelly Yechimovitch, "that Friedmann is determined to destroy the Supreme Court, and everyone to whom the State is dear must stand against him."



Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Aharon Barak chimed in, "There won't be judges in Jerusalem if the government manages the court system."  Former Supreme Court Justice Mishael Heshin said, "It's hard to believe that someone [Friedmann] could cause so much damage in just six months in office... He's not an elephant in a china shop; he's a wild African elephant."



Friedmann, for his part, explained, "Every organ and body requires supervision; the only one that works without any supervision is the Supreme Court... Whenever I say that there should be some restrictions on what is considered justiciable, a choir of voices de-legitimizing me begins, using words like 'pogrom,' 'elephant in a china shop,' and 'his hand should be chopped off.'"



Respected columnist and TV personality Dan Margalit was particularly harsh on Friedmann, writing, "His actions are good for those with money who are close to the government, but when the Movement for Quality in Government and the Lawyers Forum wish to appeal, they'll be told that they are runny-nosed elements with no rights. This is pure corruption... They say that the Supreme Court has no right to determine the route of the Partition Wall - when in fact it has the perfect right to do so.  The Supreme Court is able to determine when the closure of a field of Palestinians is necessary for national security and when is it being done merely out of closed-heartedness."



The Arutz-7 Law

"It should be known," Margalit added, "that the Supreme Court has not intervened in Knesset decisions unless the injustice cried out to the heavens."



In March 2002, the Supreme Court nullified a duly-passed Knesset law known as the Arutz-7 law.  The law in question was passed in the spring of 1999, and stated that Arutz-7 and two other stations were entitled to receive radio broadcasting licenses.  A nine-member panel of the Court accepted a petition by three left-wing MKs, revoking the because it harms the "rule of law" as well as the "freedom of occupation" of potential competitors.  Arutz-7 received its eligibility for a license without fulfilling conditions that other stations must fulfill, the Court stated, but "merely" by the fact that it had been broadcasting for at least five consecutive years.  MK Tzvi Hendel, the original of the nullified law, said at the time, "The ruling proves that the Supreme Court is totally detached from the will of the Knesset and the people...  We have no choice but to use our large majority to legislate a new law that the Court will not be able to nullify."