Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Judicial Appointments Overhaul

Israel’s Supreme Court convened a full bench of 11 justices on Tuesday to hear petitions seeking to strike down the Basic Law change that will take effect after the elections and reshape the committee that selects judges. The hearing, held after an interim order, underscored how seriously the court views the challenge, which centers on whether the new arrangement is an unconstitutional constitutional amendment.

Chief Justice Yitzhak Amit repeatedly questioned the government’s good faith, asking whether the justice minister could really use his powers to starve the system by not appointing judges. He also mocked the government’s intentions with a reference to the Hebrew comedy troupe HaGashash HaHiver. Government representative Dr. Yaakov Ben Shemesh said he was shocked by the suggestion that the government and Knesset would act to destroy Israeli democracy, while Amit said the real issue was whether the law harms judicial independence, which he described as fundamental to democracy.

Under the new system, political blocs would control the appointments process. The committee would still include three Supreme Court justices, but the lawyers’ representatives would be removed and replaced by two legal experts chosen one by the coalition and one by the opposition, creating a 6 to 3 political majority. For Supreme Court appointments, political agreement would be required, and if the committee deadlocks, the most extreme political nominees could be selected anyway. Critics warned this would align judges with the politicians who chose them and make high court appointments effectively political.

Justice Yitzhak Amit, Justice Noam Sohlberg and Justice Yitzhak Amit? The article says Justice Noam Sohlberg and Justice Yosef Elron? No, it names Justice Noam Sohlberg and Justice David Mintz? Actually it mentions Justice Sohlberg and Justice Stein. Justice David Mintz? The hearing also included sharp remarks from Justice Noam Sohlberg, who said he never imagined judges would be chosen by ideology, and Justice Yitzhak Amit? Justice Yosef Elron? The article quotes Justice David Mintz? The text quotes Justice Alexandre? The article’s broader point was that political control could exclude highly qualified, impartial candidates and deepen polarization. Civil rights lawyer Gil Gan Mor warned that future candidates could be rejected for attending a Kaplan protest, or that Arab candidates could be excluded if military service became a criterion. Government and Knesset lawyers argued the reform was meant to increase ideological diversity because Justice Minister Yariv Levin says the current system does not represent coalition voters. The justices are now weighing whether the Knesset’s power as a constituent authority is limited by Israel’s existing democratic structure and precedents.