Is it possible at this time to pass a law that will prevent Netanyahu from serving as prime minister, and what is the court’s role in the question of assembling the government?
Prof. Yedidia Stern, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute, says this is a change in the rules of the game. “There is a kind of lowering here, a lowering of the common denominator and a commitment to the rules of the game. This means that they are ready to go in the direction of personal legislation, even though there are some substantiated justifications. “That’s why this law is personal, and it’s invalid.”
“If such a law is passed, it will be subject to judicial review in the Supreme Court. This will be the opportunity for the Supreme Court to pass a law in a way that will show the public that the court is a matter of affairs, not political,” Stern adds.
In his opinion, “In principle, the court should have asked itself who the Israeli law gives the authority to grant the mandate for the establishment of the government. The answer I understand from the law, is the president. So, the court should say that the issue is not judicial, but the president lives and two other judges Decide that the issue is judgmental. To me, this is not a legal question, but a normative one. ”
“Assuming that they continue to think that the issue is a matter at the heart of the political arena. Intervention through legal norms, after elections have been held – this is thwarting voter will. The norm of reasonableness, exercised by judicial discretion, should have been explicitly stated in the law, but such a sharp interpretation – We have not. This is the core of the political arena and the law must respect this. However, it is important to say that the voter law is clearly not in place of the law and the voters are not decisive about the norms, “Stern concludes.
Prof. Yuval Shani, Vice President of the Israeli Democracy Institute, agrees with Stern’s position. “I think this law is not a good idea. I understand that at the moment we are talking about a law that will only apply from the next Knesset, which reduces the damage to the current game, but there is another question here – is it possible, according to the legal situation today, to appoint a Knesset member who has serious charges against him? “.
“The arguments that are being heard about a convicted conviction or a conviction on appeal are talking about an incumbent prime minister. The debate at the moment is whether this rule also applies to a prime ministerial candidate. This debate is based on a partial understanding of the Supreme Court ruling on the issue of Deri and Panhasi. The court makes a distinction between the question of competence, which is a binary matter – may or may not – and the discretion, which means that in some circumstances a person qualified for the position – in Netanyahu’s specific circumstances, may be serious indictments related to the purity of the measure and the fulfillment of his role – is still unlikely He was appointed prime minister. This is also the case in Deri, Panhasi and Hanegbi cases, “Moss said Beautiful second.
According to him, “the consideration of the electorate’s will is indeed dominant, and the democratic decision must be reached in a legal framework. However, the law does not establish a clear cause of disapproval, but it is a matter of discretion.”
Source link
https://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/429423
