Q&A: On the repeal of the reasonableness standard
On the repeal of the reasonableness standard
Question
Hello,
I didn’t understand what power is left to the judiciary when the reasonableness standard is repealed.
Suppose the reasonableness standard is repealed—on what basis would the High Court of Justice be able to strike down laws, if at all?
It seems like repealing the reasonableness standard, the override clause, etc., are all aimed at the same purpose, just in different wording.
Thank you
Answer
Obviously, it’s all moving in the same direction: clipping the wings of the judiciary in favor of the executive and legislative branches. But there are many differences in the details, and it also depends on the wording. The demagoguery is flourishing on both sides, and people are really not being precise about what these things mean.
Discussion on Answer
For the sake of precision, the High Court of Justice uses the reasonableness standard to overturn administrative decisions, not laws. But aside from that point, you’re right that the direction is clear.
The government is subject to limits of authorizing law and conflicts of interest, and the court will be able to continue enforcing that in accordance with its authority. What it will not be able to do is decide that things which are lawful and within the government’s authority, and where there is no conflict of interest, are unreasonable in its eyes, even though they are reasonable in the eyes of the Knesset.
Let’s start with the fact that the court should enforce the law. There is no need for judicial review.