Q&A: The High Court and Deri
The High Court and Deri
Question
What does the Rabbi think about the High Court’s ruling on Deri?
And more specifically:
A. Does the Rabbi agree with the use of the reasonableness standard in the context of disqualifying him?
B. Does the Rabbi agree with what Justice Grosskopf wrote, that the Knesset enacted Deri’s Basic Law through an “abuse of constituent authority,” and with the legal implications that follow from that, in his view?
Thank you!
Answer
A. Completely. Appointing a repeat convicted offender in financial crimes as finance minister is absurd. Even if the reasonableness standard is a creation of the court (though of course it exists elsewhere too), when a government behaves this way there has to be some body that balances and restrains it. In other words, why is only the High Court supposed to keep the rules if the government is openly wiping its feet on them?! Even the Nazi regime was legal, and I still would have expected the courts there to balance and restrain it (if they could). I would have had no complaint against them if they had gone beyond their formal authority.
B. I completely agree. True, this wasn’t invented just now, because for several terms already they’ve been playing around with Basic Laws according to whatever momentary need arises, but here it was done in a cruder and more blatant way. First, it is entirely a personal law, and in addition its content is the qualification of criminals to serve in governmental positions. That of course testifies, a thousand witnesses over, that it is a personal law. In my opinion the High Court should have struck down this law, or at the very least ruled that it would apply only from the next term onward.
There were never any great saints here, but this coalition is blatantly doing whatever it wants to all of us. They don’t have a shred of shame. A bunch of corrupt crooks, every last one of them.
Discussion on Answer
With God’s help, 9 Shevat 5783
The first personal law in the country was enacted in order to retroactively approve the appointment of Rabbi Professor Simha Assaf, one of the greatest scholars of Hebrew law and Geonic literature. His appointment turned out to be illegal, since he had not served as a judge and had not practiced as a lawyer beforehand, as required by law. Therefore, the Knesset added another qualification condition: “an eminent jurist.”
In both cases this is not really a “personal law,” since it allows any person who meets the legal conditions to be appointed. That is how it would have been possible to propose Rabbi Shlomo Dichovsky for the Supreme Court. Likewise, “the Deri Law” could qualify Isaac Herzog to serve as president, even though he evaded criminal investigation (in the nonprofits affair) by means of “the right to remain silent,” an act because of which the High Court disqualified Rafael Pinchasi.
As for fitness to be appointed a minister, the disqualifying conditions are explicit in the law: anyone sentenced to prison is disqualified for seven years, or anyone on whom moral turpitude was imposed; from this it follows that a person who does not fall under these conditions is fit to serve as a minister. Why then is acting according to the law unreasonable?
Best regards, Naori Svirsky-Ashkenazi
It has now been published that the gang running this country is planning to enact the next Basic Law of Basic Laws:
“Amendment — Judicial review regarding fitness for appointment only:
There shall be no judicial review by any judicial instance regarding any matter… connected to or arising from the replacement of a minister and his removal from office…”
Interesting whether the High Court will strike down this amendment to the Basic Law.