For the first time since the establishment of the state, the Supreme Court will convene today (Tuesday) for a hearing with a full composition of 15 judges, with the focus being on the petitions against the law to reduce the reason for reasonableness.
The importance of the discussion takes on new significance in light of the fact that it is an amendment to the "Basic Law: The Judiciary", and if the judges of the High Court decided to intervene in the legislation of the Knesset, the ruling will set a dramatic legal precedent.
"irresponsible document"
The head of the opposition, Yair Lapid, wrote before the debate in a post on Facebook: "The High Court will not discuss the Basic Law this morning - any debate about the question 'Is it permissible for the High Court to invalidate basic laws' is not valid in this case. It is not a Basic Law."
"It's not even similar to a basic law. I've been a Knesset member for 11 years. I've been prime minister and minister, I'm even the son of a former minister of justice. I know what a basic law looks like, I know how it is enacted."
"The 'amendment to the Fundamental Law of the Judiciary' that is being debated in the High Court today is not a fundamental law. It is an irresponsible document on which someone wrote a "fundamental law" and since then they demand that it be treated like the Holy Scriptures."
In addition, Lapid attacks Rothman and the government: "This morning the High Court will discuss the law, which is a crooked and bully private proposal by Simcha Rothman, which did not pass at all in the government, which was conducted in a violent, hasty, careless, flashy, unrestrained procedure, which has nothing to do with the enactment of basic laws link."
"This legislation is not worth getting into a national fight. Those who want basic laws to be treated with reverence, let them start by legislating them properly."
"The High Court of Justice should not go into the essence of the law. He only needs to say to the government: 'Do you want us not to discuss fundamental laws? So enact them properly'.' Fundamental laws have a procedure. There is some minimum of respect that is due to the process. This minimum was not met. Not even close."
"If it was a real fundamental law, I would be in trouble. I had a much harder time with the question, 'Do you think the High Court can discuss fundamental laws?' I had to answer a long, complex answer concerning the foundations of the Israeli system, the built-in tension between the authorities, and the question of what exactly is a "democratic Jewish state."
"This law saves me the problem. It is not related to the debate. It is not really a fundamental law."
Negotiations for a compromise during the last day
On the last day, the talks between the coalition and Prime Minister Netanyahu's representatives continued in front of the President's House, regarding the agreement to continue the legal reform, which may further interfere with the High Court of Justice in the Probable Cause Law.
However, an agreed-upon compromise has not yet been reached, but it is possible that even after the debate Netanyahu will unilaterally announce a change in the further legislation and the Prime Minister himself made it clear that he continues to try: "Netanyahu is working to exhaust every possibility to reach a national agreement that will bring balance between the three authorities. If an agreement is reached As such, no one will prevent its realization."