An override clause phrased as Justice Minister Yariv Levin's proposal was, wouldn't have passed in any country. A better version is important, but needs to be hammered out, taking into account the US checks and balances system.
Still - Judicial reform is a must, but with rationality. It's time to fix the core issues.
First, the attorney general, who is also the government's legal advisor in Israel, and its subordinate legal advisor system must be revamped. The attorney general's power is unchecked and it must be reined in. It's the ministers that have jurisdiction within the law to legislate. Legal advisors are supposed to advise, not have the last word. A new prime minister should be able to choose a new legal advisor to the government, as is the case in the US.
Second, Any reasonableness standard must be dropped completely. A possible new standard can be created that serves the Basic Laws, not one that leaves the judge's personal opinion absolute. This will force justices to inspect their consciences and dig deeper into the facts and law. It will also make them more accountable to the nation. It's a necessary change.
In terms of the committee for the appointment of justices, the opposition to reform should have no argument. In the current system, it’s not only Knesset members from the reigning faction that have a say. Other “neutral” individuals also have a vote - and two represent the lawyer's guild which is afraid to anger the justices on the committee This would never pass muster in the United States where only US Senators from the ruling party and no other individuals can appoint the judges.
In good faith, perhaps the Knesset majority can concede something in the area of allowing one or two neutral individuals, but the rest of the votes should come from the party that won the majority. They represent the voice of the country and have the power to set the future trajectory of the makeup of the court.
Finally, there needs to be a case or controversy standard whereby the court only accepts specific cases that have standing, brought by litigants. For a court to impose an outstretched arm on every issue in Israel without it being framed yet as a legal case is arbitrary and prevents the legal issues to crystalize. The Supreme Court should be “supreme” because it only takes the best prepared and highest cases, removing itself from nonconcrete maters, not accepting matters where litigants have no standing and matters that need specific expertise such as military and religious issues..
With these rational changes, a more agreeable bill could pass.
Steven Genack is an attorney. His great uncle, Eliyahu-Moshe Genechovsky was a member in the First and Second Knesset. He is the author of the upcoming book, Articles, Anecdotes & Insights: Genack-Genechovsky Torah (Gefen Publishing House).