Prime Minister Shaked? ‘Anything’s possible’

Justice Minister doesn’t rule out action to restrict judicial power. ‘If the judges don’t do it themselves, the Knesset may have to act.’

By Ido ben Porat, INN

Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked

Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked (Jewish Home) is not ruling out the possibility that the Knesset will need to restrict the the power of the judicial system and the right to file suit, in light of the fact that the courts in Israel have started to rule on security and other matters which ought to be determined by elected officials in the Knesset and government.

In an interview with “Orech Hadin,” the newspaper of the Israeli Bar Association, Shaked emphasized that “not everything is subject to adjudication, and the land is not filled with law,” challenging the well-known dictum of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Aharon Barak. “There are matters related to security and economics which need to be determined not in courts, but in the Knesset and government. Even when the district attorney or attorney general is dealing with investigations of some form or another, we need to let them finish them and not let someone file a petition, and if they petition in the middle of an investigation, they need to be booted out.”

“As of now, the judges have the final say. The judges developed this fact gradually. They opened the gates to everyone and to every issue. I think that it would be correct to restrict in some form the right to file suit, and the best would be for the judges to do this themselves…and yes, if this doesn’t happen, maybe the Knesset will have to intervene.”

Shaked related to the method practiced in Israel of choosing supreme court judges based on “seniority,” according to which the longest serving judges on the court are appointed to chief justice and deputy chief justice positions.

“No less problematic is this unprecedented matter,” she said. “In no other system do they choose the head of the system according to his seniority. It doesn’t exist. Not in the police, not in the district attorney’s office, not in the government. In my opinion, the person who needs to head the court is the most talented one, both from a legal perspective and a management perspective, but I have yet to decide on this matter, and it is indeed worthy of public debate.”

On the possibility of serving in the future as Prime Minister, she said, “ I don’t know…you know how life is very surprising. Nobody, not even me, thought that at age 40 I would be the Justice Minister of the State of Israel, therefore I think that anything is possible and everything is open.”

“With that, if you ask me today, I think that after Binyamin Netanyahu the most fitting person to serve as Prime Minister is Naftali Bennett…You ask if I want to serve another term as Justice Minister? Then the answer is yes indeed. I would be happy to.”

On the criticism over her appointment as Justice Minister at the beginning of her term she said, “I think those statements disappeared quickly from the public discourse, but above all, the raising of eyebrows was because I’m young, because I’m a woman, and because I’m right-wing.”

May 11, 2017 | 10 Comments »

Leave a Reply

10 Comments / 10 Comments

  1. @ Abolish_public_education:
    Haaretz agrees with you. We shall see. I do believe you are mistaken on one point. Shaked does not want the Supreme Court over-ruling the Knesset. They have actually stopped battles in progress. That is what judicial activism means. It’s not ambiguous. The court, as shaped by former Chief Justice Aharon Barak, acts on the assumption that it is above the law and can affirm or throw out any policy merely on the basis of whim.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purposive_approach

    These so-called “democrats” have the most bizarre and undemocratic concept of democracy.

    “Justice Barak: Democracy in danger if power of courts reduced
    Former Chief Justice Aharon Barak is convinced that High Court has not overstepped on political issues and is the protector of democracy”

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/221673

    This is isn’t democracy. It’s “Plato’s Republic.” The Judges are the “philosopher kings.”

    It’s worse than here. And, that’s pretty bad.

    “Home   >   Israel News
    When It Comes to Judicial Reform, Minister Shaked Is All Bark and No Bite
    Supporters of Habayit Hayehudi were counting on Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked to bring the Supreme Court to its knees. Their hopes have been dashed.

    Yossi Verter Apr 09, 2016 8:22 AM
     2comments   Zen Subscribe now
     Shareshare on facebook  Tweet send via email reddit stumbleupon

    Illustration. Amos Biderman
    Likud activists call for Israeli defense minister’s political ‘assassination’ amid Hebron controversy
    Netanyahu backs Minister Shaked: Everyone has the full right to criticize Supreme Court
    MK Yacimovich blasts justice minister’s attack on Israeli justice system
    Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked’s speech at the Israel Bar Association’s conference in Eilat this week was beautifully structured. Basically, it was a rant against the Supreme Court, but it was served up to the audience with an impressive coating of documents, citations and quotations by distinguished jurists from Israel and the United States.
    Shaked began by flattering Supreme Court President Miriam Naor, saying: “With her at the head of the judiciary, we can all sleep soundly.” Those were the first and last kind words that Naor and her colleagues heard from the minister. Shaked devoted the rest of her remarks to delivering a series of hammer blows – albeit, couched in polite language – against everything that Naor and the other Supreme Court justices represent in their supposedly “activist” approach. Shaked spat out that term contemptuously, as though it were a stubborn nutshell that was stuck between her teeth.
    Like many right-wing politicians, the minister from Habayit Hayehudi found it hard to swallow the Supreme Court’s recent decision to strike down the so-called “stability clause” of the natural-gas deal. She thought the bench would decline to hear the case because, as she put it, the justices would not feel comfortable ruling on the legal issue knowing that they’re not the ones who will have to pay the price for their decision. Naturally, she accepted the court’s adoption of 90 percent of the deal. That was fine. But when a majority of justices thinks that a clause that ties the hands of the government, the Knesset and the regulators for the coming 10 years is too much – Shaked balked. How dare the court!

    Shaked painted a terrifying and gloomy picture of the situation in the wake of the ruling, with phrases like “an isolationist economy,” “a country that devours its investors,” “crossing of boundaries,” disrespect for “spaces of governance,” “black holes.” In a word, anarchy. But if the situation is so awful, how come it’s so good, according to the prime minister? And why haven’t the gas companies packed their bags and left in the wake of the ruling? Obviously the right formula will be found, and the gas will erupt from the ground. Have no fear, Yuval Steinitz is here.
    For the past 11 months, Shaked, a computer engineer by training, has held a job that in the past was filled by some of Israel’s leading jurists and politicians. If she had any qualms about taking the post, she overcame them or is successfully hiding them. She came to the Justice Ministry with a coherent worldview and with various initiatives and bills she had previously sponsored in the Knesset, which aim to constrict, restrict and interdict the Supreme Court’s powers. But in those 11 months, she hasn’t managed to convert even one idea into legislation.
    Her appointment as justice minister raised high hopes among supporters of Habayit Hayehudi. They fantasized about how this tough politician would bring the Supreme Court to its knees, diminish the status of the attorney general, and purge whatever needed purging. Their hopes have been dashed. They discovered that between the idea and the reality falls the Shaked.

    Shaked wants to promote the judicial philosophy of Prof. Daniel Friedmann, one of her predecessors. In his two-year term as justice minister, in the government of Ehud Olmert, he never ceased to fulminate against the Supreme Court and its justices. After he left and the toxic dust settled and the bad blood dried, it emerged that nothing had actually changed. Unlike Friedmann, Shaked is not vulgar or driven by personal grievances against the justices. She is not looking for a fight, and as far as is known she maintains correct working relations with Justice Naor. After the speech in Eilat, she and Naor visited the local courthouse and then held a lengthy working meeting.
    The justices, for their part, have not tried to delegitimize Shaked; at the practical level, she doesn’t worry them. Friedmann is an esteemed jurist, but he was an external appointment without a party backing him and he lacked political skills. Shaked is a judicial featherweight – but she is a proficient politician and her party is a powerful member of the coalition. However, she is constrained by the coalition agreement, which grants Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon’s Kulanu party veto power over any action liable to harm the Supreme Court.
    The thinking today is that Shaked’s opportunity to foment the revolution she seeks will come early next year, when four Supreme Court justices will retire (Elyakim Rubinstein, Noam Sohlberg, Salim Joubran and Zvi Zylbertal). However, here, too, it won’t be smooth sailing for her. The law stipulates that to be appointed, a candidate for the court needs the support of at least seven out of nine members of the appointments committee. Three justices, Kahlon, plus at least one of the two members of the Israel Bar Association on that committee add up to five votes. Shaked will thus have to do business with Kahlon, who has no intention of turning the Supreme Court into a branch of Habayit Hayehudi or Likud.
    In his speech at the event in Eilat, Kahlon sent a sharp and clear message to Shaked. And in a TV interview, he said, “With all due respect, she has only one vote” in the appointments committee. “I deflect attacks on the Supreme Court every week, like a goalie.” I asked him later what he thinks about the reforms that Shaked wants to make in the judicial system.
    “I’m not against reforms,” he said, “but it can’t be done like this, in this way. To the contrary: She should create a serious, professional committee headed by a former Supreme Court justice that will sit for half a year and do thorough, comprehensive work.” Asked who he thought should head such a panel, Kahlon suggested former Justice Minister Dan Meridor.
    In other words, for now, the Supreme Court justices can sleep soundly, and Shaked can work on her next speech.
    In private conversations, Shaked concedes that her hands are tied; she can deliver good speeches but not the legislation she wants.
    Even without Kahlon in the way, would Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu really go along with her – or would he block her at the moment of truth? Shaked is still high on the blacklist of a certain influential person in the Prime Minister’s Residence. The Netanyahus won’t be pleased to see her become the darling of the right-wing camp. And Netanyahu’s record (since the 1997 episode in which he failed in his attempt to appoint Roni Bar-On attorney general) shows considerable respect for the Supreme Court. For him, declaring war against the Supreme Court is like launching a ground invasion in the Gaza Strip. His voters are roaring for action, but he is judicious and careful and understands what’s good for him and for the country. And possibly, deep down, he’s a bit scared of the possible consequences.

    Yossi Verter
    Haaretz Contributor

     Send me email alerts for new articles by Yossi Verter
    Send me email alerts
    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.713300

  2. @ Sebastien Zorn
    :
    Oh, those guys never saw a case whose arguments, they felt, didn’t deserve an airing in court.

    To them, activism is when left wing judges rule in a manner which they happen to disagree.

  4. I would love to see the judges appointed by Hashem personally, but don’t you think that is already the case?

  5. @ Sebastien Zorn
    :
    Account for .. *what*?

    That a bunch of new justices were appointed using a selection method that differed, slightly, from the previous one?

    @ Alan Winters

    Appointment of judges is an absolutely horrible method. Perhaps the only thing worse than instituting jurist loyalty to the lawyer-guild is assigning it to politicians.

  7. THEY MUST CHANGE THE WAY JUSTICES ARE APPOINTED TO THE SUPREME COURT. ALSO END THE RULE THAT THE MOST SENIOR JUDGE IS THE CHIEF.

  9. the best [way to restrain frivolous lawsuits] would be for the judges to do this themselves

    :
    Oh, she has GOT to be kidding.

    Government judges, like all government bureaucrats, are controlled by special interests, e.g. the lawyer-guild whose sole purpose is to promote litigation (and the high costs, especially legal fees, associated with it).

  10. :
    Government *is* conflict.

    More government, more need for government judges to adjudicate conflict.