High Court Deri
What does the rabbi think about the High Court of Justice Deri?
And more specifically:
A. Does the Rabbi agree with the use of the reason for reasonableness in the context of his disqualification?
on. Does the rabbi agree with what Judge Grosskopf wrote that the Knesset enacted Deri’s Basic Law while “abusing constituent authority” and with the legal implications that result from this, in his opinion?
thanks!
A. Absolutely. Appointing a person convicted of serial financial crimes as Minister of Finance is absurd. Even if the reason for reasonableness is an invention of the court (which also exists in other places, of course), when a government acts this way, there must be a body that will balance it. In other words, why should only the High Court of Justice uphold the rules if the government is doing its business on them from the springboard?! The Nazi regime was also legal, and I would still expect the court there to balance and restrain it (if it could). I would have no claim against them if they had exceeded their formal authority.
B. I completely agree. It’s true that it wasn’t invented now, after all, for several terms now they’ve been playing with basic laws according to one momentary need or another, but here it’s done in a more blatant and crude manner. First, it’s a completely personal law, and in addition, its content is training criminals to serve in government positions. This, of course, is evidenced by about a thousand witnesses that it is a personal law. In my opinion, the High Court should have invalidated this law, and at least ruled that it only applies from the next term.
There have never been any great righteous people here, but this coalition is doing its business on all of us from the springboard. They have no shame. A bunch of corrupt crooks, all of them.
It has now been announced that the gang that runs the country here is planning to enact the following Basic Law:
“Amendment - Judicial review for the matter of eligibility for appointment only:
There shall be no judicial review by any judicial body regarding any matter.. related to or arising from the change of a minister and his removal from office…”
I wonder if the High Court will invalidate this amendment to the Basic Law.
On September 19, 1839, the first personal law in the country was enacted to retroactively approve the appointment of Rabbi Prof. Simcha Assaf, one of the greatest scholars of Jewish law and the literature of the Ge'onim. His appointment turned out to be illegal, as he had not served as a judge or as an attorney before, as required by law. Therefore, the Knesset added an additional qualification requirement: "a distinguished judge." In both cases, this is not really a "personal law," as it allows any person who meets the conditions of the law to be appointed. Thus, it was appropriate to propose Rabbi Dichovsky as a Supreme Justice. Likewise, the Deri Law could qualify Yitzhak Herzog to serve as president, even though he evaded criminal investigation (in the associations affair) through the "right to remain silent," an act for which the High Court disqualified Rafael Pinhasi.
Regarding qualifications to be appointed as a minister, the law explicitly states the conditions of disqualification: those who have been sentenced to a seven-year suspended sentence or those who have been disgraced, and generally you hear that a person who does not meet these conditions is "qualified" to serve as a minister. Why is it therefore unreasonable to act according to the law?
Best regards, Nauri Svirsky-Ashkenazi
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
