Question

A bit of escapism in this complicated time…
I was wondering whether the Rabbi happened to read the ruling that rejects the application of Deri’s corrupt law in the Tiberias elections. And in particular, Justice Stein’s remarks there?
Stein takes a striking kind of judicial imperialism there, and you can see that he really tried hard to reject the application of Deri’s corrupt law. In the ruling he writes that the law is supposed to serve “doctrine and not a trick,” and therefore he disqualifies it on the grounds that it contradicts the “general value of equality” that arises from the Declaration of Independence (!!!).
My question is whether, in your opinion, when a judge sees such a corrupt law, when it’s fairly clear that he has no formalist tools to strike it down (let’s say he is a conservative like Stein and doesn’t believe in Aharon Barak’s purposive interpretation of statutes), would it have been proper for him not to touch the corrupt law, or to use a legal maneuver to delay its application?
And another question: doesn’t such a maneuver go too far and risk dramatically changing future case law, so that judges will use the Declaration of Independence to strike down laws on less clear-cut and less formal grounds?