Justices tell Levin to arrange vote for Israel Supreme Court president ‘in coming days’

 

 

In a highly significant decision, the High Court of Justice tells Justice Minister Yariv Levin to bring the appointment of a new Supreme Court president and two new Supreme Court justices to a vote in the Judicial Selection Committee, and to begin preparations for such a vote “in the coming days.”

The court notes that it has given Levin a “substantial amount of time” to find “broad agreement” for the appointment of a new president which the minister has said is critical during a time of war, but that since those efforts have failed “there is no escape” from convening the committee and making the appointments on the basis of the majorities required under law: five out of nine for a Supreme Court president and seven out of nine for a justice.

The decision is not yet binding since it is not a final ruling but the three justices presiding over the case tell Levin that a final ruling will be issued in September “should such a thing be necessary.”

Of the three justices presiding over the case, Yael Wilner and Alex Stein are conservatives, and Ofer Grosskopf is a liberal.

In a continuation of his efforts to assert greater government control over the judiciary, Levin has sought to have hardline conservative justice Yosef Elron appointed as president, even though such a step would overturn the principle of seniority, in place since the founding of the court, whereby the most senior justice on the court is made president.

As an alternative, Levin has proposed that liberal justice Isaac Amit, who is in line for the presidency according to seniority, become president, and one of two extremely conservative legal academics, who were sources of inspiration for Levin’s judicial overhaul agenda, be made a Supreme Court justice.

Supreme Court Acting President Uzi Vogelman has reportedly not agreed to either of these proposals, resulting in the current impasse.

A source close to Levin says in response that the High Court’s decision constituted a “conflict of interests” and was made “without authority,” adding that “they are judges over themselves.”

The source added: “They are practically taking total control of the Judicial Selection Committee, refusing to accept anyone who is not theirs, and are just proving how right the [judicial overhaul] reform is.”