Because of the postponement of the date: a change in the composition of the judges who will hear the petition against Yariv Levin

The discussion in the Supreme Court regarding the appeals in the matter of the non-convening of the Judicial Appointments Committee has been postponed to October 22nd. Since this will take place after the retirement of Justice Anat Baron, the replacement judge in the composition will be Justice Alex Stein.

The composition will now consist of three justices: Yael Vilner, Ofer Groskopf, and Alex Stein, which is considered a more conservative composition and may be more "convenient" for the Minister of Justice, Yariv Levin.

The discussion was supposed to take place yesterday (Tuesday) but was postponed after the Supreme Court justices stated that they accept the position of the Minister of Justice, Yariv Levin, and deferred the planned discussion of the appeals that seek to compel the Minister of Justice to convene the committee for the selection of judges.

The judges accepted the position of Minister Yariv Levin that he has the right to respond to the court's decision to issue a conditional order, and for this purpose, the judges postponed the discussion that was scheduled for this week.

"Basic right to voice"

The postponement of the hearing date came after the Supreme Court issued a "conditional order" against Minister of Justice Yariv Levin, demanding that he convene the committee for the selection of judges.

Immediately thereafter, Minister Levin responded to the Supreme Court and argued that they do not have the legal authority to issue such an order. He demanded to be given more time to respond, while surprisingly, the government's legal advisor, Gali Baharav-Miara, sided with Levin's position.

"With all due respect, the court is not authorized to determine for the respondents, especially when it comes to the Minister of Justice and the Government of Israel, what should be included in the respondents' response. This matter is also subject to the exclusive discretion of the respondents. The court's determination of what the respondents' statement should include deprives the respondents of their basic right to express their views in a way that prevents the possibility of justice."