Former Minister of Justice Ayelet Shaked today (Wednesday) criticized the claims of the representative of the ombudsman Aner Hellman and the petitioners at the hearing held yesterday at the High Court on the cancellation of the law on reducing the probable cause. In an interview with Sefi Vinir on the IDF airwaves, Shaked said: "Some of the arguments of the petitioners and the ombudsman were embarrassing, it seems that recently someone has robbed the Jewish state of logic."
According to her: "When the the legal adviser to the government says that there is a serious damage to democracy, it is insulting, there is no end to democracy here. To use the heaviest and most controversial tool and invalidate a basic law is unthinkable, and from a political point of view I hope he will not do it because it will only cause a war of authorities."
As recalled yesterday (Tuesday) during the hearing at the High Court, the representative of the legal advisor to the government claimed before the judges: "We are concerned about the government's request for separate representation, because it claims that the honorable court has no authority. We saw an amazing example, the Knesset came and said, 'Does the court have authority? The government will decide. He also noted, "If there is something that should scare us all - it's those who come and say 'trust us, we won't violate the basic laws'. This means that we all have to be very, very careful."
During the hearing, Supreme Court Judge Noam Sohlberg reprimanded the representative of the Attorney General of Israel, Aner Hellman, who joined the petitioners' position calling for the law to be invalidated. Sohlberg turned to Hellman and said: "The reasonability clause was in the platform of the religious Zionist party ahead of the elections. Where were the gatekeepers then? Why didn't you say anything to them about the fact that her platform has an element that harms the democratic character of the country? Why didn't you oppose their running in the elections?"
In response, the representative of the Attorney General of Israel evaded and answered: "It is an intelligent and beautiful argument. But there is a difference between an election platform, the democratic right to choose and be elected, and a law that passes, but the court said there are other rights that need to be balanced." Judge Sohlberg answered him and repeated the question: "This was in the party's platform, did you consider disqualifying them?". And in response Hellman answered: "There is no legal basis for canceling the pretext in the Basic Law, the damage here is completely different."
