Right, this is already the second time.

You’re supposed to be a facts person and not a propaganda person, so give me one thing, just one—something practical, an actual ruling, not empty talk and legal musings with no practical consequence, because everyone’s a champion at that—from anywhere in the history of the state, that was so significant that the High Court threw it to the right. If you suddenly discover it’s not as simple as you declared, I recommend maybe trying ChatGPT. Full disclosure: I didn’t even check Google, and I’m speaking only from memory and not from any actual review, and still I’m sure I’m right. Since this is such a rare event nowadays—even rarer than divine intervention in creation—there’s no way I’d forget something like this when it finally happens, not before things had completely gone off the rails and the filth had risen to the top. I hope you won’t get cute and tell me that the mere fact that the High Court allows the right, and religious people, and Haredim, the right to vote—or doesn’t expel them from the country, or even from Judea and Samaria, without disqualifying them—that that itself should be counted in its favor, to the glory of Israel’s democracy.

I debated whether to delete this idiotic and demagogic message. I’ll leave it here for eternal disgrace.
There are countless such decisions. Decisions that allow the army to do almost anything. A decision allowing Bibi to run despite a severe conflict of interest and criminal indictments. A decision approving Zini’s appointment. Quite a few decisions regarding asylum seekers (their detention and deportation), approval for almost all right-wing candidates to run (except, if I recall, twice). Likewise, rulings time and again in favor of the Chief Rabbinate and non-intervention in its corrupt conduct.
All that is just what came to mind in one second. My impression is that most High Court decisions go “to the right” (that is, pro-Bibi and pro-army). And the reason is simple. Not because the High Court is right-wing (though nowadays even that isn’t far from the truth), but because there is a presumption of validity for administrative and governmental action. The government in recent years has been “right-wing” (supposedly), and therefore a leftward ruling means invalidating one of its actions. Because of that presumption, strong reasons are required. So usually the High Court does not intervene. What makes headlines are the few times it does intervene or rules “to the left.” And in my estimation that is quite a small minority of the decisions. But that’s only an estimate. One thing is clear: there are countless decisions in the “right-wing” direction.

***** Deleted due to demagogic trolling *****

If you don’t have time to think, don’t do it here.

“Stop here, thinking is going on” (only).

They’re mainly upset about the High Court’s brutal intervention in appointing Deri as a minister, because really, where does the court get the nerve to prevent a corrupt criminal to the core from serving as a minister in Israel?!

Your logic, Rabbi Michi, is like the claims of a lawyer defending a bank robber: “You can’t call my client a bank robber and accuse him of that. On Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of the first week of May, he sat in a pub like many people his age, drank beer peacefully, and did not rob a single bank.”
That’s you too, with all due respect.

Did you successfully complete second grade? If so, please fire the teacher.

I actually understood exactly what he meant. The examples you gave of High Court rulings that were supposedly in favor of the right are the kind that, in a properly functioning state governed by law, could never have reached the High Court in the first place. The bizarre reality we have here, where “the redhead” petitions the High Court all day and all night (and by the way, usually without the Court even charging him costs), and from out of that flood you manage to sift out a few High Court rulings “in favor” of the right—imagine that, it didn’t disqualify Netanyahu from running in elections!!!! Something the law clearly, unequivocally, and beyond appeal allows him to do, and it’s not even clear how it could have gotten to the High Court at all—this matches exactly the point the commenter made here.

Me too, little me—I checked this a few years ago, and to my surprise I found that the attacks on the “leftist High Court” have no connection whatsoever to the facts, the rulings, and especially the reasoning.

Not that it changes anything for the brainwashed.
It helps a few truth-seekers.

To Former Haredi, Currently a Proper Jew,
Please note:
There is an enactment from the Geonic period, and it is brought in Jewish law, that an apostate Jew (to Haredism?) who returns to his Judaism and his people must immerse for the sake of accepting Judaism.
It appears in practical Jewish law and throughout the generations, especially when there are inheritance disputes between brothers: if one brother returned to Judaism but did not immerse for that purpose, is he entitled to a share of the inheritance?
(And given your vast expertise in High Court rulings and their reasoning, you surely know this, for example, from the reasoning for granting citizenship to Brother Daniel, the Jewish Christian from Poland.)
Therefore I would recommend that you immerse for the sake of returning to Judaism, both for your own good in this world (inheritances and the like) and for your own good in the World to Come (if over there they take into account the rulings and enactments of the Geonim and the religious courts throughout the generations, along with the rulings and reasoning of the High Court).
Love you,
A Good Jew

To the honorable Good Jew,
Thank you for your love and your advice.
Regret for the past,
confession,
and resolution for the future—
that is the essence of repentance.

Of course I also immersed for the sake of returning to Judaism.
Rest easy.

I liked your response to Haredi Observer from the Sidelines, but surely it makes sense that there is a certain slant of the left and the progressives in the High Court, since that is indeed how it appears. (In my view that’s a plus.) And regarding the examples you brought, I just want to point out that there the conservative judges were the majority.