I've read through your arguments. Respectfully, they are way off while also ignoring several relevant factors.
First, regarding points 1 and 2: it's ALWAYS suspect when a politician seeks to change how a country's court of last resort works/functions in response to a ruling/holding that they don't like. Ironically, you try to make that same point regarding Netanyahu later in your thread but fail to apply that to the Biden Admin. (I will explain why your attempt to argue that it does apply to Netanyahu is incorrect further on.)
Biden (or whoever is really pulling the strings because _ I have my doubts) knows full well that these reforms require a constitutional amendment, one that he does not have a snowball's chance in hell of getting passed.
He also know's full well that most Americans don't know that it requires an amendment or what it would take to get an amendment passed.
You're a smart guy (I mean that sincerely): Do you not find it extremely suspicious that this is being brought out to such fanfare at the height of election season?
This leads me to ask, for what purpose would you launch a populist crusade against the High Court, that is unlikely to succeed, at the height of election season? To bring in more votes and galvanize and polarize a certain constituency that will lap it up.
First, regarding points 1 and 2: it's ALWAYS suspect when a politician seeks to change how a country's court of last resort works/functions in response to a ruling/holding that they don't like. Ironically, you try to make that same point regarding Netanyahu later in your thread but fail to apply that to the Biden Admin. (I will explain why your attempt to argue that it does apply to Netanyahu is incorrect further on.)
Biden (or whoever is really pulling the strings because _ I have my doubts) knows full well that these reforms require a constitutional amendment, one that he does not have a snowball's chance in hell of getting passed.
He also know's full well that most Americans don't know that it requires an amendment or what it would take to get an amendment passed.
You're a smart guy (I mean that sincerely): Do you not find it extremely suspicious that this is being brought out to such fanfare at the height of election season?
This leads me to ask, for what purpose would you launch a populist crusade against the High Court, that is unlikely to succeed, at the height of election season? To bring in more votes and galvanize and polarize a certain constituency that will lap it up.
You also argue that it's in response to "longstanding precedents *the court itself created or affirmed* in the past."
In 1896, in Plessy v. Ferguson, SCOTUS affirmed the right of states and the US federal government to enact Jim Crow laws under the "separate but equal" doctrine.
That same "longstanding precedent" was reversed by SCOTUS in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education.
The fact that a high court can come back and revisit its own precedents is not necessarily a bad thing.
We can argue about specific cases (and I imagine will disagree on many of them), but of course a high court must have that ability. Otherwise, "separate but equal" would still be the the law in the US. I think we both agree, without hesitation or qualification, that this would be VERY bad.
In 1896, in Plessy v. Ferguson, SCOTUS affirmed the right of states and the US federal government to enact Jim Crow laws under the "separate but equal" doctrine.
That same "longstanding precedent" was reversed by SCOTUS in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education.
The fact that a high court can come back and revisit its own precedents is not necessarily a bad thing.
We can argue about specific cases (and I imagine will disagree on many of them), but of course a high court must have that ability. Otherwise, "separate but equal" would still be the the law in the US. I think we both agree, without hesitation or qualification, that this would be VERY bad.
You argue that the political context is different and that "Netanyahu is seeking to put his thumb on the scale to protect himself from legal jeopardy and give handouts to his far-right allies."
That's simply not factually accurate or at best, overly simplistic. Netanyahu himself (who has reportedly, behind the scenes, tried to block his ministers' insistence on moving forward with the proposed reforms) has repeatedly stated that no judge appointed as a result of such reforms would be permitted to handle any of his existing cases.
I am a former prosecutor and have been following his trials fairly closely. I would be happy to sit with you and explain to you at length what is wrong with them - but that is a separate discussion.
That's simply not factually accurate or at best, overly simplistic. Netanyahu himself (who has reportedly, behind the scenes, tried to block his ministers' insistence on moving forward with the proposed reforms) has repeatedly stated that no judge appointed as a result of such reforms would be permitted to handle any of his existing cases.
I am a former prosecutor and have been following his trials fairly closely. I would be happy to sit with you and explain to you at length what is wrong with them - but that is a separate discussion.
However, I will say this about the proposed judicial reforms: Everyone is up in arms about them at the moment (especially the judiciary) but conveniently ignore the fact that the same or similar reforms have been called for by BOTH THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT in Israel (including Yair Lapid) and yet, it suddenly became bad when a "right wing" government was the one to finally make good on its word and made progress toward passing it.
And what are some of the highlights of the reform?
- The judiciary currently has a say in supreme court appointments and in practice, even has veto power over supreme court appointments. That means that the Israel SC has what no other western/democratic high court has: A say in who is allowed to join its membership. As a result, it can (and has) blocked appointments of non-like-minded jurists. That's never a good thing.
- The Israel SC is known as the most activist high court in the West. Standing is granted to anyone the Court wishes. It has developed the "reasonableness" doctrine to impose its view of subjective reasonableness on government decisions, even while applying the exact opposite doctrine to private corporations (i.e., the business judgment rule). In the US, there is the justiciability doctrine and certain cases are simply not deemed justiciable and so the courts cannot hear them. In Israel, the Court deems everything to be justiciable.
- The Israel SC has even seen fit in the past to proactively intervene in defense policy by initiating a visit to IDF chiefs to opine on IDF procedures without a case being brought before it.
And what are some of the highlights of the reform?
- The judiciary currently has a say in supreme court appointments and in practice, even has veto power over supreme court appointments. That means that the Israel SC has what no other western/democratic high court has: A say in who is allowed to join its membership. As a result, it can (and has) blocked appointments of non-like-minded jurists. That's never a good thing.
- The Israel SC is known as the most activist high court in the West. Standing is granted to anyone the Court wishes. It has developed the "reasonableness" doctrine to impose its view of subjective reasonableness on government decisions, even while applying the exact opposite doctrine to private corporations (i.e., the business judgment rule). In the US, there is the justiciability doctrine and certain cases are simply not deemed justiciable and so the courts cannot hear them. In Israel, the Court deems everything to be justiciable.
- The Israel SC has even seen fit in the past to proactively intervene in defense policy by initiating a visit to IDF chiefs to opine on IDF procedures without a case being brought before it.
@JewishWonk So you're right about the fact that one is within the reasonable limits of democratic reform. You're just wrong about which one.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
