The reform changes the rules of the game

You were definitely right that I meant to ask you why I understood your intention and not just to tell you that my wording was definitely lacking,
I will admit and not be ashamed that I did not reach your end of the matter regarding the definition of the rules of the game
On the one hand, you claim that excessive childishness makes you think that the rules of the game are rigid and inflexible/changeable
And on the other hand, you claim that in this case the government is changing the rules of the game excessively aggressively.

What emerges from the above is that the rules of the game are elastic. They can be defined and not excessively.
And again I fall into childish misunderstanding. Are there rules for elasticity, how does the objective observer determine the strength of the permissible elasticity?

It does not seem logical to me that the rules of the game are in the Maslach method? If the other side was silent, then it is a sign that it is in the area of elasticity?
When Aharon Barak determined that a Basic Law is a constitution (or has the same validity as a constitution) on the basis of which he can invalidate laws. This is still in the realm of elasticity despite the enormous innovation, while the government's determination that since a Basic Law is a constitution, a court cannot discuss its legality at all is breaking the rules of the game.

In addition, I would be grateful if you could explain the limits of the court in light of your approach described above,
1. Where does the court derive its authority to discuss?
2. Is there any limitation on the court, and who has the authority to define this limitation?

And an even more important question is whether the work of the court is not an act that is supposed to be completely objective, and subjective questions in general are not legal questions and are not supposed to be judicial.

And again, sorry if I came across as overly childish, it is really not intentional.

"I have written more than once that it is much more important to limit the government than the courts." The rabbi actually wrote more than once that it is better to limit the courts, which are not elected by the people and are not up for re-election.

By the way, a nice anecdote is that Germany is among the countries where the constitution explicitly authorizes the court to intervene in anti-democratic constitutional amendments. This is quite in line with the legal approach that Rabbi Michi mentioned. Regardless, the entire discourse on unconstitutional constitutional amendments is a meta-legal discourse much more than a formal legal one (like where does the Knesset's authority to enact laws come from?), and so is the public debate that exists today. That's why I'm a little amused by the discourse of the Kohelet Forum and their friends who adhere devoutly to a kind of legal formalism ("Israel does not have an eternal clause") as if in order to limit a corrupt government, formal legal authority is really needed. Beyond that, there is this unclear discourse about the fact that unconstitutional constitutional amendments without any authority in the constitution for this (an eternal clause) only exist in League B countries, such as India, Colombia, etc. And there are none in Finland and Canada, the same reformed countries that we would like to resemble. After all, as Rabbi Mikhi always says and very rightly in my opinion, democracy is first and foremost a government culture. With a government culture like Finland's and Canada's, there is certainly no need to interfere with the constitution. But in countries with a more backward and corrupt government culture, when a constitution is established that qualifies Deri to be a minister, then even without the authority of a court, this horror must be rejected. It is clear that in Canada there will be no unconstitutional constitutional amendments with a democratic and progressive government culture. What kind of delusional argument is this? In order to resemble Canada, we must first adopt its values and government culture, and then the constitutional mechanisms will be like there anyway. But not to say "in Canada there is no interference with the constitution" and introduce government norms from Bangladesh.

“Limit a corrupt government” , ” When a constitution is established that qualifies Deri to be a minister, then even without court authority this atrocity should be rejected”
Who said that the government is corrupt? That Deri is a horror?
Your world of values, which you believe is absolute and obligates everyone.
It actually seems that you are actually interested in a monarchy and not in democracy
In your opinion, there are supreme values (which the people did not determine and agree upon). And there is someone who can impose them on the people even though the people did not give him permission to do so, is that your intention?
Do you actually agree with the legitimacy of religious coercion in the management of a country?

Hello,
You wrote: “On the one hand, you claim that excessive childishness makes you think that the rules of the game are rigid and inflexible/changeable
And on the other hand, you claim that in this case the government is changing the rules of the game excessively aggressively.” Why is it “on the one hand” and ”on the other hand”?
When you ask whether there are rules for elasticity, you fall into the same childish fallacy. Rules for you are a rigid matter, and therefore by definition there are no ‘rules’ for this elasticity. There is intuition and common sense.
And by the way, the signs from the other side are an excellent indication. When you see that there is a significant group in the public expressing strong protest, you understand that this is an extreme step. What is wrong with this indication?
Aharon Barak did not establish what you wrote in his name, for two main reasons: 1. This is the simple meaning of a law that was established as a basic law, and of course there, unlike today, it had very broad agreement in the Knesset and the public (and don't give me the actual majority in the Knesset, as those who play with words do). 2. The Knesset itself said this, and in the discussions there the possibility of invalidating laws was explicitly raised (the ultra-Orthodox and religious people wanted not to support it because of this). As far as I remember, a few years later it was even updated in legislation. But I will not enter into this demagogic debate here again. As I recall, we do not like to fall for language games.
1. The court is a governmental institution that draws its power from the public. In our system, there are no elections to the court, but in other systems there are. It does not really matter, since as a governmental institution, it draws its power from the public, even if the appointment to it is made according to different rules. These rules represent the opinion and consent of the public.
2. Within the authority of the Knesset, to the point of common sense (such as retroactive legislation, etc.). And don't put us in childish loops again. It's just like whoever determined the authority of the sages in Halacha (hint: sages). At the tip of each pyramid there is an institution that determines its own powers. And when there are three ends (governmental authorities) then there are three such institutions. If one of them is completely subordinate to the other two then there are no three authorities here. And this does not mean that the court does not act according to the laws, but it has its own rules beyond the laws.
I think we have exhausted the discussion.

In fact, what I managed to absorb is that there are no binding rules, and in fact, all the Dalils are
wonderful.
I learned that it is childish to think that there are laws and limits (or in your wording that the law and the limit are rigid)
and childish to think that an authority cannot assume authority that it has not received (or in your words that each authority determines its own powers)

and that in fact the entire set of laws in the country is a collection of children's games.

And the form of management of a group of individuals is in the sense that a person who is honest in his own eyes will do

As the judge said, sometimes it is possible to block roads (or something like that)
My friend of arbitrariness (what you call common sense and intuition) you are leading a line of thought of anarchy. And I fail to understand the rational behind this.
You are essentially saying that if your common sense and intuition say that the sofa in my living room should be on the east side, then you are entitled to move it there without any permission you took from me.

To refine your position in the reality test, I would be happy if you expressed your opinion
A party that won 80% of the vote on the basis of a platform that elections would be changed to once every 5 years
And enacted a law to change the frequency of elections to every 5 years.
And the High Court invalidated the law because it is a fundamental violation of democracy.

Should the government address the invalidation or ignore it?

Shabbat Shalom.

What nonsense the rabbi writes. You won't believe what a position can do and how much it can degrade a person to lie, even someone like Rabbi Michi who is supposed to have basic intellectual integrity. The rabbi is really impudent to the point of not believing it.

In fact, from the first moment the High Court took on unlawful powers for itself, there were a lot of people who resented these changes to the rules of the game. Because his interpretation of the law was of course a lie and he invented things that were not written in the law (according to the legislator's intention).

But because they respected the law, they waited for the moment when it would be possible to fully and explicitly regulate the meaning of the law (not that it would help against progressive, postmodern judges who, for them, have no objective meaning for any text whatsoever). And it took a while for all the elements on the right to finally understand this. In fact, the rabbi is saying that because they stole from the people little by little, they are not allowed to take back the stolen goods all at once, and only with the thief's consent.

Unbelievable

Excuse my ignorance, what position does he have? I find it hard to believe that he prefers Lapid/Gantz/Lieberman/Hayut/Fogelman, or am I really childish and naive?

According to the words, Michi could be a real lawyer. Someone who confuses the mind in order to distort simple truths. It is clear that before every set of rules there is common sense. But here common sense is even before the laws on the side of the reform's perfections
In fact, according to the truth, there is no need for reform at all. The court made decisions without the authority that the people gave it. No one in the world thought that invalidating laws would actually be a tool for controlling an agenda and worldview. And a tool for enacting laws (invalidating a law is legislation and also creating laws and purposeful interpretation is legislation) and for governing. The government can simply ignore and give instructions

The courts in Israel are corrupt to levels that no government has ever been as corrupt as them. It disgusts me in general how a person can support people who invented the concept of “purposeful interpretation” With so many twists (childish claims, etc.) courts that are allowed to give themselves powers by their very existence and even if they are not elected (they actually are elected, and the government is not really elected). Disgusting. I wish you would go. Get out of the country. A liar like you has no place among the people of Israel. You disgust me. “The remnant of Israel will do no wrong, and you will find no deceit in their mouths“.

Peace be upon you
Of course he prefers them. He hates all the Haredim and Bibi too. And the Haredim too. He even prefers the Arabs (and even Balad!) over them. Search here on the site. He has no loyalty to the Jewish people at all.

You completely exaggerated!!!
First of all, loyalty to the truth is needed!! If the Jewish people really do wrong, you should not support them.
A remote city should be destroyed even if they are Jews!
It seems clear that he is wrong, but whether on purpose or because of hatred for the Haredim and their way/mustards in the subconscious, I do not know
But his answers are really strange in relation to the sharpness and talent he displays on other issues
It seems to me that what he claims against great scientists who put forward philosophical theories in such an amateurish way really holds true in him
Thus, his views on political science and their projection into the world of law are quite amateurish.
But on the contrary, the fresh and fresh with his talent can bring good clarity to the subject

Hello
Are you Haredi?
In any case, in this area, Miki's talent is in the service of lies. This is not an amateur view. This is simply pure trolling. “A court that draws its power from the people, that was not elected by them (to make the kind of decision it did) and that has a veto on the appointment of judges, and that as a governmental authority can give itself authority….. ” . In inventing such nonsense, it has competitors only in the courts of Israel and in the High Court. This is literally Baron Munchausen trying to lift himself up by pulling his own hair. Like the claim (made with the utmost seriousness) of the feeble-minded Meridor who claimed that the High Court has the authority to invalidate basic laws because it (the High Court) has already said it in the past…..

Go learn what an Overton Window is. How can you slowly sell people crazy things as truth?

To the H’.
Aharon Barak himself has said more than once (for example in his interview with Family magazine, and I think also to Roni Koban) that everything that the court under him allows itself to intervene in invalidating laws, is solely because the legislator authorized it (in the Basic Law of Man and His Freedom). He added further, that the legislator should be respected and revoke its authority.

Some comments on the rabbi's words:
“The court is a governmental institution that draws its power from the public. In our system, there are no elections to the court, but in other systems there are. It doesn't really matter, since as a governmental institution, it draws its power from the public, even if the appointment to it is made according to other rules. These rules represent the public's opinion and consent.”
Such a description can and has been applied to a hereditary monarchy. The king represents the public as a whole. In general, the entire institution of repeated elections is unnecessary when the institution of monarchy draws its power from the public. And I say, if there is already a king, then let's go with the original king from the house of Jesse. It is true that we have not had an official descendant of his for 700 years, and if there are descendants with a traditional ancestral lineage, they are probably Iraqis or Syrians, which for the current Ashkenazi racists are unacceptable, but if there is, then so be it.

“The government makes a multitude of decisions every day that directly affect all areas of our lives, the court does not make decisions but at most invalidates (except in very few cases), and in a very small amount”
After the court invalidates, then its representatives in the executive branch – the legal advice that the courts have bestowed on officials and representatives of the people – will already prevent any other opinion on the grounds that it is not reasonable. With this method, the court does not have to make many decisions but rather focus on a few fulcrum points after which the entire governmental system will align with its decision.

“Within the authority of the Knesset, to the point of common sense (such as retroactive legislation and the like). And don't put us in childish loops again. It's just like whoever determined the authority of the sages in Halacha (hint: sages). At the tip of every pyramid is an institution that determines its own powers. And when there are three ends (governmental authorities) then there are three such institutions. If one of them is completely subordinate to the other two then there are no three authorities here. And this does not mean that the court does not act according to the laws, but it has its own rules beyond the laws.
I am just quoting the rabbi who claims that the authority of the Talmud stems from the acceptance of the people. The sages can determine what they want but in the end the people have to accept it. And here the question is asked: – Is there a way in which the public, through its representatives, can tell the judges that you have broken your oath to uphold the laws of the State of Israel and therefore you are no longer judges, or will anything the judges do as the third authority be accepted – repealing laws, neutering them through interpretation, deciding what is reasonable and what is not, and so on and so forth?

14,
1. Are you sure you thought for a minute before you wrote this bizarre analogy? Ours is a democratic country whose institutions are elected by the public. The court is also elected by the public, only not directly but through the rules and mechanisms that the public (or its representatives) have established. What does that have to do with a king and monarchy?
2. The same. Think a little about the extent of the influence that both authorities have on our lives, and you will spare me the answer.
3. The Talmud has authority by virtue of the public, but the Sanhedrin does not. And the shaping of the authority of the Talmud is also entrusted to the Talmud and the sages, not to the public.
It can, through its elected representatives. But not without broad agreement.

It seems a bit strange to say that there are rules but they are flexible and even flexibility is flexible!
And it becomes really delusional when the flexibility is always only on one side.

And in general the idea that there are 3 completely independent authorities that determine their own authorities sounds disconnected from reality.
I don't know a reality where there are 3 drivers in one car. There must be one
And the bottom line is that you actually disbelieve in the very trivial concept of a state of law
In your opinion, there is an authority here that is above the law. And it is so sad that a talented person like you is actually
setting the foundations for anarchy that supposedly relies on rationality

L H’

You're the one who's making me laugh. Anyone who thinks that the government is really corrupt should take up arms and stand up and shoot the members of the government and that's it. There's no point in talking about limiting a corrupt government. After all, the biggest disagreement among the people is precisely about the actual corruption (or the relative corruption in relation to the corruption of the other side) of the government. There's no point in talking about limiting government by someone the people didn't elect for that purpose, but rather to settle disputes and be trusted with enforcing the law. A court that wants the authority to decide what justice is and what democracy is should directly, and for a limited time, receive the trust of the people (direct elections for all members of the High Court of Justice every four years) and peace be upon Israel. There's nothing formal about a Kohelet forum here. This was the unwritten agreement of the citizens of the state and the Jewish people among themselves when the state was established, because that was the state of affairs that was good in the eyes of everyone (except for a few lawyers who no one asked) until 1995. The elections that were held just now were about exactly this: which corrupt person will run the state. The entire discussion here is about common sense and that without a single drop of formality. And so is the discussion of Ecclesiastes. The ones who are dealing with empty formality are actually the lawyers and members of the High Court of Justice, your friends, who are trying to insert into some seemingly objective framework with worthless mumbling what they think about the current government. In fact, the government does not need the reform at all, but simply to conduct itself as if everything that Aharon Barak decided was never said and the officials will do what is right in his eyes.

In addition, no one cares what is happening in Germany. What is important is what is happening here and whether it is consistent with common sense and the truth. And the left here is simply either a hypocrite and a liar or a very, very stupid person. Really clueless. I'm tired of the wordplay of people who think we're stupid and can be smeared with this garbage (maybe you're busy convincing yourself).

If we talk about common law, all schools of thought in Israel accept the view that a governmental authority is prohibited from doing anything that it has not been expressly authorized to do. Consequently, in order to assume the authority to invalidate laws, the court must receive express authorization. Therefore, even if we interpret the phrase “shall not enact” as establishing a Basic Law, we still do not have an authority that is expressly authorized to decide when a law contradicts a Basic Law. With no choice, we must interpret this as a directive to the Knesset. Even if we agree on the authority of the court to change laws, we will have to say that somehow the Basic Laws are considered a constitution. If so, it is no longer possible to claim that they are not strong enough to withstand judicial criticism. If they are not strong, laws cannot be invalidated, and if they are strong, they cannot be repealed.

And that's before we even talked about the explicit authorization of the Knesset as a constituent authority (an authorization that must come from the people, of course). So even common law is not a magic phrase that you can put whatever you want into. Otherwise, you end up with anarchy, because everyone wants to put other things under the umbrella of common law.

Things are so clear and simple
that it simply boggles the mind how a talented person can fall for these word games, without any real content.
And even if we assume that he does it intentionally, everyone still sees how he can think that these word games will really convince the other, someone who so advocates independent thought and detachment from any dependence on anyone “smart” than me, high self-criticism. Trying to sell such rigid people devoid of any ability to define and distinguish between what is permitted and what is prohibited for those with authority or without authority
It is possible that this is part of the spirit of progress that penetrates even the rational camp and breaks all the assumptions of the rational.

A. This is how the monarchy was described in the Middle Ages. It is not about a despotic oriental ruler, but about a king who represents the public even without being directly elected. The Rani in his division between the Dina de Malchuta abroad, where Jews are exiles and are not part of the public, and the Dina de Malchuta in the Land of Israel, where Jews live on their land, describes this accurately. The difference between a modern democracy and a monarchy is not that one represents the public and the other does not, but that in a modern democracy all officeholders are re-elected.
B. And yet, as soon as every government decision that is given according to law requires the approval of a legal advisor, which is reasonable in order to prevent a petition to the High Court, the court actually controls.
C. If you look at the current situation, there is no way to remove judges, especially Supreme Court judges. They can make any decision and the public seemingly has no way to declare them removed from office.

A. I don't live in the Middle Ages, and if you're asking what I think I said, I said it.
B. Not true. Poke actually predicts what's happening and how many court decisions it affects.
C. There's definitely a way. And even if there isn't, that's what the public decided. That's also the public's decision.

Hello,
I recognized the fact that your mind is going crazy from the beginning. It's just a shame that you're unpacking all of this here. I'm not deleting your nonsense and that of your colleagues here just because of my allergy to censorship that goes against my values, but my request is that you find another platform for your madness. You said what you wanted, and now spare us your catatonic repetitiveness.

I apologize for hurting you, I really didn't mean to.

Well, so now the public wants to ”impeach” judges. Change their selection method. So that the selection by the public will truly reflect the values of the public in all its shades (like in parliamentary elections), since the courts have decided to also function as politicians and policy promoters. And they won't just call their selection: “selection by the public”.

So what is there to oppose to that?