Q&A: Is Levin’s Reform the End of Democracy?
Is Levin’s Reform the End of Democracy?
Question
Hello,
I’m not well-versed in political matters, and I want to know whether the reform is indeed far-reaching and leads to dictatorship.
I’m confused (and maybe a little anxious), because voices that were considered and are considered “right-wing” are coming out against it. What is the truth?
Thank you
Answer
I wrote about this here, and there will be more in the next column. In my opinion, it does not lead to dictatorship, but it is indeed very bad. The fact that “right-wingers” are coming out against it is only a good thing. In my view, everyone on the right should oppose it, because the reform expresses a distinctly left-wing approach. The right, in its conventional definition, advocates limiting the power of the government and strengthening the judicial system and the rights of the individual and the citizen. That is liberalism. The left, by contrast, advocates centralism and concentrating power in the hands of the government, even at the expense of individual rights. Therefore, it is astonishing to me that the entire right is not out in the town squares.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t agree at all. But this will be discussed better in the next column.
That discussion is good, hopefully it will address the issue itself and not the person, and will be reasoned rather than declarative.
The war is not between right and left, but between those who benefit from the existing situation and those who do not.
Whoever benefits from the existing situation in careerist, resource-based, piggish, elitist terms will oppose any reform that harms him.
Therefore, if you find someone who opposes the reform, try to find out how he benefits from the existing situation. Material benefit, literally and plainly. Ignore the pseudo-philosophical mind games meant to mislead and conceal the truth.
No right-winger can support a progressive court. Progressives focus not on individual rights but on the lack of rights of the collective. It undermines the right of individuals to organize as a nation. The Supreme Court does not look after only the individual rights of citizens, but also the individual rights of enemies who are not citizens. For example, it does not allow the state to fight the enemy as a collective, and thus prevents retaliatory and preventive actions. It can think that way, but it cannot impose that on the public. And in our case this is not a court but a government in every respect. When it wants to do something, it interprets a law in some way so that it says what it wants and obligates the government to act accordingly. This is simply a dictatorship, only without responsibility and without being accountable to anyone. The reform is an attempt to fight leftists with leftism. Meaning: what is permitted to my rival is also permitted to me in fighting him, even though I do not believe in this in relation to myself (that is, within the internal relations of the right-wing or national collective).
Progressive is not liberal. It is anti-liberal. And the overwhelming majority of jurists of all kinds are progressives (which is of course no coincidence; it follows from the nature of the profession).
Wow, how many slogans in one talkback. A pile of nonsense without any basis whatsoever. It is obvious that you simply do not know the Supreme Court’s rulings at all and are living off detached brainwashing.
Let the reader judge.
There are about 200 billion dollars in the state treasury, bought through the labor of the high-tech people, and after the revolution they will be distributed among a bunch of corrupt cronies who will move the money to accounts in the Jersey Islands like Bibi, then leave the country and leave us holding the bag.
They’ll speak loftily about governability, Judaism, and of course go to the scoundrel’s last refuge—patriotism!
Gabriel,
one who disqualifies others does so with his own blemish.
The right does indeed advocate reducing governmental power, but precisely for that reason it prefers to place that power in the hands of those who are subject to public oversight (at the ballot box), and not in the hands of other governing bodies that do not represent the public. As I understand it, the idea of giving power to a group of elevated wise men who are not accountable to the people is the more left-wing idea currently being proposed. One that continues the political philosophy of Plato. The current court, which abolished standing requirements and also reached its hand into the statute book, has turned itself into a political player in every respect. The problem is that it is not elected by the public. So the reform returns power to the people in the simple sense of the term. It is no longer possible to see a court that acts as though ‘everything is justiciable’ as merely a protector of human rights.