Supreme Court Warns Judicial Selection Overhaul Could Politicize Bench

Israel’s High Court of Justice heard six petitions on Sunday against a wartime law that radically changes the judicial selection process. The case was heard by an expanded panel of 11 justices, with Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara backing the petitioners’ claim that the amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary and the Courts Law is an unconstitutional constitutional amendment, similar to the precedent set in the reasonableness doctrine ruling.

Chief Justice Yitzhak Amit opened by outlining the overhaul. Under the old system, the nine-member committee included three judges, two Israel Bar Association representatives, two ministers and two Knesset members. The new law removes the Bar Association, replaces it with two public representatives chosen directly by the coalition and the opposition, and creates an automatic political majority of six to three. It also changes the voting rules so that appointing a Supreme Court justice would require agreement by the coalition and opposition representatives.

Amit warned that the danger is immediate, even though the law is not expected to take effect until the 26th Knesset. He said the court must look at the law over 15 years, not just two, and argued, “Already today we do not promote good judges for political reasons. With the new law, it will be four times worse.” He added that within a year, two new Supreme Court justices would be seen as appointed by political camps, and that “in the body of every judge a political chip will be implanted.” He also cited Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s past warning that without the change, the Supreme Court would “be destroyed.”

Justice Yael Willner said the public could lose trust if judges appointed by politicians later lead major national bodies, including a state commission of inquiry and the Central Elections Committee. Amit replied, “We are old. We will no longer be here.” Justice Daphne Barak-Erez said the law is already affecting reality, because candidates and decision-makers are delaying appointments in anticipation of the new system.