Q&A: The Will of the Majority
The Will of the Majority
Question
I understood that the Rabbi generally supported the reform, with a few reservations, and basically argued that the things Levin pointed to regarding relations between the government and the High Court of Justice were correct.
It turns out that the unhinged Tally Gotliv wants to legislate a law that would allow investigating a member of Knesset and suing him civilly only with a majority of 90 Knesset members. I’m no expert, but in my estimation that’s not something the High Court could let pass. The question is whether, despite corrupt and crazy laws like these, you still think that the will of the people (when it’s not even clear when the people ever said they wanted this) prevails. Or does the High Court prevail?
Answer
This is too general and too tendentious a question. Even if you’re right about the proposal (I haven’t checked and don’t have a position), a bill—an egg that hasn’t yet been laid—from one idiot says nothing about the system as a whole or about the reform. On the contrary, if even without the reform such a law can be passed, then what harm would the reform do? And if Tally Gotliv isn’t okay, does that mean the High Court was okay over the years? Twisted logic.
Discussion on Answer
Correction: you said it was wrong that the Court struck down the law that was enacted against the reasonableness standard.
As I recall, the amendment to the law refers only to government decisions, not to legislation. It should also be remembered that there are plenty of other grounds for overturning laws and decisions. Resorting to this ground is practically almost unnecessary. So I don’t see a connection to this law. In general, in principle the majority decides, except where there is a blatant deviation from the rules of the game.
Just updating that the law was approved today by the Ministerial Committee for Legislation and will be advanced in the Knesset. My question is: if the High Court strikes down the law because of the reasonableness standard—the one you said was excessive, and that the Court should not have struck down that law about back in January—do you then admit that the reasonableness standard, and in general the High Court’s intervention, is justified, or as far as you’re concerned does the majority decide?