The power of the judiciary to review the law

It seems to me that I separated the hat that checks whether the government's activity is legal or not, and the hat that checks whether the Knesset's legislation is moral or not. When it comes to the first hat, there is no dispute that this is the role of the legal system without any dispute (including if there is a constitution or the Basic Laws are a constitution to check the legality of legislation)

But "reasonableness" of value has seemingly nothing to do with the legal system. The legal system has no tool to determine whether a certain thing is moral or not. And the claim "who will balance the government so that it doesn't go crazy?" That's exactly why I asked my question
It is true that this question is a good one, but it is impossible for the answer to be so arbitrary. Because there is no one to balance the government, then the court becomes a balance.

Would you agree to hear an answer to the question of what will be done when the surgeons sit down? So the judges will take the surgeon's scalpel and dissect.? Even if the question is good (and it is not really a good question) it does not guarantee that the answer is good (and in our case it certainly is not good)

The judicial branch can stop the government from doing illegal acts.
Only an appointment by the Knesset to some authority (by the Knesset Workers' Committee) can give power to criticize legislation

As I understand it, there is a strange behavior here. A kind of person who stands on the side of the road and decides who will cross the road and when they will cross the road because in his opinion it is dangerous (and indeed he is right in his claim). But! No one asked him, and no one appointed him to this position.

And with regard to the government's control. I really do not understand and if you could elaborate more, why do you see it this way:
“But the government is part of the Knesset and the fate of the members of Knesset is in its hands”.
This is a clearly unclear sentence. What fate of the members of Knesset is in the hands of the government? Do you mean that since the Prime Minister can fire the minister, then the minister in his MK hat will vote against his conscience? I find it difficult to accept this as a working assumption to the point of stating that the government is lying in the Knesset and not vice versa. And do you think it is better to actually oblige the “Norwegians” by law without the ability to return to the appointed minister, in order to prevent the government from controlling the Knesset?

I answered that briefly. There is no other institution whose job it is to do this, and common sense says that there must be something like this (otherwise the government can go wild and use its very great power as it pleases). Therefore, it is quite reasonable in my opinion that the court will take on this role. In Dworkin, it is even formalized.
I will not agree to accept that the director of the Histadrut will do this, but the court is a natural candidate until we establish a Constitutional Court, a Supreme Court, and the like. There is common sense.
The Knesset cannot distribute powers or deny them at will. First, because it is not a constituent authority either, and second, because there are limitations on its functions and power, as I wrote in the last column (A Philosophical Look at Current Controversies) and in several that preceded it.
There is nothing to elaborate on regarding the government's control of the Knesset. Anyone who does not understand this is either a fool or a fool. Either way, there is no point in engaging in it. Many have already gone into this, and I think there is no dispute about that.

Can't the Knesset overthrow governments and therefore control the government?

Of course it can. It's a simple fact and I wrote it. But in practice it can hardly happen because the government has complete control over the Knesset. Both because the Knesset itself is dissolved along with the government (unless an alternative coalition is formed), and because Knesset members are members of the parties that make up the government and depend on the members of the government to receive positions (ministers and deputy ministers, head of the agency, ambassador to the UN, KKL, the agency, the Central Bureau of Statistics, etc.). The absurdity reaches the point where the prime minister determines the heads of the Knesset committees and their distribution among the parties. And we haven't even talked about the Norwegians. This way, Bibi can distribute positions to witnesses in his trial, such as Yariv Levin and Tzachi Hanegbi, without opening his mouth.
Even when the Knesset brought down a government, it happened because of individual Knesset members who got angry for one reason or another and their dependence on the prime minister ceased or was not strong enough and they defected to another party. Therefore, even this is not really an action by the Knesset as an institution against the government but rather a betrayal by a member of the coalition (which could be due to considerations such as Goldfarb's Mitsubishi or weakness and submission to personal pressures such as Idit Silman). An exception to this rule is Amichai Shekli, for example.

It doesn't matter. It's clear that in order to achieve stability, you have to buy Knesset members. This has always been true, but the fact that the government depends on Knesset members not getting upset or concluding that they are leading the country to ruin greatly restrains it. Therefore, logically, the claim that the Knesset depends on the government is very, very strange. The government ultimately represents the will of the majority in the Knesset, and not the other way around.

In ink, that's how it is, from a logical-conceptual perspective. In practice, it's the other way around, as I wrote.

Sorry if I'm rambling, but I really couldn't understand. Are you claiming that the legal system will restrain the government because you want it that way, even though I don't want it?
It seems very strange to me that a body that the sovereign did not authorize to restrain the government, would restrain the government just because there are some who think it is appropriate. Legally, there is a very serious failure here, as far as I understand.
How will it be decided whether the Knesset is going wild? According to what criteria? This is a completely subjective opinion, and only someone who has received authority from the sovereign can be in such a position. The situation where there will be no balance for the Knesset except by the sovereign every 4 years or by a revolt in the streets is dozens of times better than letting such a small minority control the sovereign

And I really don't accept the attitude that the government controls the Knesset, even if in reality you see that there is a reciprocal relationship and influence, it is exactly equivalent to the claim that the Prime Minister's wife controls him. Whether this is true or not is up to him to choose. Even if she really controls it, this is precisely the people's choice.

Well, I'll try to explain a little more. Let's assume that what happened in Poland a few years ago happened here. A plane crashed and all the members of the Knesset and the government died. After we set a good day and celebrate, what should we do? I assume that we will act as they did in Poland: the court will take the reins of power into its own hands, and organize orderly elections to re-establish all the institutions. In the meantime, it will also be the executive and legislative authorities. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that our law does not make any reference to such a situation. You can ask there: What is your name? In which authority do you take the reins of power without the legislature having authorized you?
The answer will be common sense. There is an existing governmental institution, and now it is the only one. Naturally, it takes all the reins into its own hands until they manage to reorganize the system. Why wouldn't the Civil Servants' Federation do it? Or the Seafarers' Union? Because the existing governmental institution is the natural candidate for this, and that is the court.
Before you yell at me, I am not comparing the situations. But this example shows that there are situations in which common sense says that an existing institution should be given authority even though the law does not give it.
If there is a government that is rampant, and even if the entire public agrees that it is rampant and acting improperly, seemingly no one has the authority to dismiss or replace it until the next election. In principle, that government can also decide that there are no more elections, and everything is fine. Would you agree that someone should restrain this government? Either the court or the public with guns or the army with weapons. Why? Because that is common sense, even though the law does not establish such a way.
Now the question arises: what do we do when there are differences of opinion on whether the government is indeed rampant or not? This is really not a simple question, but you understand that the answer to it is also not simple. Those who believe that the government is rampant are not willing to act according to the law, even though others think that it is not rampant. The court is supposed to exercise discretion to the best of our knowledge (and also take into account the fact that there are differences of opinion), and act accordingly. This action may turn out to be inappropriate, and they may be biased, but as long as they exercise their best judgment, it is legitimate. Especially when we have no rules of the game and therefore it is difficult to speak in the name of the rules of the game. When there are no rules of the game and one of the parties (the government) takes them into its own hands without authority, I certainly understand why the court decides to intervene even without authority. This is even if a significant part of the public does not think so.
I will also mention Dworkin's principles, according to which there are principles that have not been enacted and are still as binding as laws that have been enacted (I will touch on this in the next column). Think about the principles of morality in the Nazi regime. In the Nuremberg trials, officials and officers were sued even though they obeyed their own law. In your opinion, this is impossible, after all, the authorization of the law in Germany was not given to do so. On what basis were they sued? Can American law form the basis for suing German citizens and soldiers? Common sense says that there are principles that are binding even without being enacted. Who will determine this? After all, the Germans themselves disputed this, and who are you to decide for them?! Common sense will decide.
I once brought here Chen Maanit's example of a local authority that decides to place the municipal garbage collection near my house. For no reason. There are better and more successful places and there is absolutely no need. There is no municipal law that prohibits this, and the authority has the authority to place the garbage wherever it wants. The value of my house has fallen to the height of the grass and my quality of life below it. Do you think it makes no sense to let a court intervene? Do you think we should wait for the legislature to give its opinion (if it even decides to do so) on this case? Or maybe I should run as a candidate in the council elections and try to convince the public that the council made an inappropriate decision? In my opinion, this is an unreasonable decision and should be overturned. Who will do that? There is a court and it is the natural candidate for it. Not the Seamen's Union nor the Fire Department Committee.
In short, life is much more complicated than the simple and formalistic picture you paint here.

Regarding the government's control of the Knesset, I won't go back to that again. I already said that you cling to theoretical and conceptual slogans and ignore the actual situation.

Indeed, the desire to shout against the outrageous comparison is immense!
The Knesset, which is the sovereign, decided in the name of the sovereign and someone without any authority of the sovereign will cancel it.
I will say and not deny, it is very painful that there are those who think that such an action is common sense!
61 (at least) elected officials (representatives of millions) believe that it is appropriate and on the other hand, a number of individuals believe that it is inappropriate (and they may even be right, but on the other hand, it is also clear that they may not be right). How can the possibility that the individual is right give the power of certainty to cancel the choice of the representatives of the millions?
With all due respect, there is such a simple logical fallacy here!

The possible examples of some failure in the democratic system (Chen Ma'anit/Nazis) do not give legitimacy to act against the majority's decision only in a certain situation of moral failure of the majority. And such a situation cannot be determined by the subjective opinion of individuals, except when they have received a clearly illegal order and are permitted and obligated to refuse (again, only with respect to the act they are told to do), but it is not possible for a minority to determine the majority on a completely subjective issue

And regarding the slang of the word "Ma'anit". To the best of my understanding, all individual rights are derived from the consent of the majority. For example, there is no property that does not essentially rely on the consent of the majority. And when a state decides that it is in the public interest to nationalize property, it does so.
Therefore, there may be an inappropriate decision by an elected official, but there is no way that a subjective individual can cancel it without being authorized to do so by the majority.
Wouldn't you agree that if you and I decide to establish a serious judicial system (and not a workers' committee of the Jewish People) with professors from academia and brilliant jurists, it would have no authority since the sovereign did not authorize it to do so.

I will conclude
No one but the owner can determine anything for the owner, even if it seems more just to him
The attempt to correct the disadvantage in the democratic system creates a greater distortion and a terrible injustice.

And regarding the Knesset,
I really do not understand the second part of your argument. Would you take money from a person based on this kind of argument?
Let's say Reuven owes money to Shimon, and you see that Levi does with his property everything that Reuven says/asks him
Would you collect Reuven's debt to Shimon from Levi's property?

Thank you in advance for your patience, and this patience is certainly important
The discussion around this issue can be very beneficial in creating peace between the citizens of the country

You ignore the examples I gave. They show you that there are situations in which it is right to act without authority, even if there are many who believe it is proper. In Germany, there were many who believed it was proper, and also with Putin. I am not comparing, but these are examples that teach the principle. As far as I am concerned, this is not just a moral failure but also a procedural failure (like changing the rules of the game without authority).
Regarding Chen Ma'anit, exactly as you wrote “in my opinion…”. But I will ask you the question you are asking me: Who determined that your opinion is the decisive one? For example, the actions of the government now are similar in the eyes of many to the same action of placing the garbage next to my house, and much more severe than that. Therefore, in their eyes, their validity should not be recognized, whether they are the protesters or the court.
By the way, I absolutely will not agree that the council we establish will not have authority. If this is the most relevant institution and some action is required – I will definitely accept that this institution will carry it out.

I didn't understand, do you think the institution we are establishing can act morally from your perspective even though it did not receive the authority from the people (the majority of the people)? Do you really think it is honest and right to do so, that a minority that thinks something is right will impose it on the majority that thinks differently?

And I did not ignore the examples. I addressed them explicitly.

The examples present a situation in which representatives of the sovereign act immorally. This is not a good situation. But there is no fix for it.
It is absolutely not true that because an immoral action is possible by representatives of the sovereign, then someone who is not the sovereign will be above the sovereign and will bend the sovereign. This is absolutely delusional.

This is equivalent to the Chief of Staff being subordinate to the Chief of Defense. And when the Chief of Staff decides on a military action in some way, the Chief of Defense will torpedo him, because he thinks it is a wrong action!
I am really sorry, but from a person for whom logic is a fundamental principle in his life, I would expect more
How did you come to such a logical conclusion?
“It is possible that the government (representing the sovereign) will go crazy, so we will take the decision from the sovereign about what is moral”
What is this like, that the government will go into the citizen's pocket and check whether what he buys is appropriate or not?
True, the citizen may use his money inappropriately, but it is his money!
And to the same extent, it is certainly possible that the sovereign will run his country unwisely and unjustly. But it is his country!

How can you not grasp the absurdity of this. Who has the authority to take his sovereignty from the sovereign?
And above all, who has the objective and pure scale of values who knows that this situation justifies the taking of sovereignty, 61 MKs think otherwise.

I feel like we are treading water. And it pains me that you justify arbitrary behavior in taking authority based on the subjective evidence of a minority in order to prevent the majority from going wild. This is really very far from common sense.

And by the way, the examples of the Nazis, etc. are clearly not true on a practical level. To the best of my recollection in the field of history, it is the military force/terror in the streets (the stormtroopers, etc.) that turned the country into a dictatorship, not the laws.

I answered everything. I think you're just insisting. But I've exhausted myself.

You didn't answer at all, you just insist on this arbitrariness (it's nice to give out grades)
But you're right that we've exhausted ourselves
Let's summarize
In your opinion – because there might be some problem, you're willing for a subjective minority to impose itself on the majority
In my opinion – even in light of the possibility of problems, it's immoral for a subjective minority to take authority against the will of the majority

Thank you very much for your time and attention