Israel’s Supreme Court on Thursday began playing with fire with the start of a hearing on petitions against the Incapacitation Law, passed as an amendment to a Basic Law in March. Israel’s Basic Laws have never been struck down by the court and many legal scholars are of the opinion that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to do so.
Last week, Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara filed an opinion seeking to strike down the law, which prevents an attorney-general from declaring a prime minister as “incapacitated” [unfit for office] except in exceptional circumstances. Her stance against an amendment to a Basic Law is such an unusual and explosive move that in a rare split from the attorney-general, Knesset legal adviser Sagit Afik on Wednesday requested to file a separate motion to the Supreme Court, writing that “it’s impossible to overstate the precedent of the attorney general’s position. The court has never revoked a Basic Law and the attorney-general is seeking to do so for the first time.”
The petitions against the law, filed by the left-wing Movement for Quality Government (MQG) and Yisrael Beiteinu MK Oded Forer, are being heard by three justices, Supreme Court Chief Justice Esther Hayut, Vice-President Justice Uzi Vogelman, and Justice Isaac Amit.
Transportation Minister Miri Regev (Likud) said on Thursday morning: “Today we’ll find out if three justices will retire democracy in Israel.” Settlement Minister Orit Strock (Religious Zionism) told Ynet: “If the Supreme Court revokes the Incapacitation Law, it will be recklessly plunging itself into an abyss.”
The hearing is expected to last all day and it is likely that additional hearings on the case will be held in the coming days.
The hearing may foreshadow how the court will rule in the even more significant hearing scheduled for next month against the reasonableness law passed by the Knesset last month – also as an amendment to a Basic Law.
(YWN Israel Desk – Jerusalem)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
Is there anything more ironic than the court deciding if a law curtailing their unfettered power should be struck down?
They seem to make it up as they go along. They don’t have any unmovable lines or laws, it’s all based on subjective reasoning.
Pathetic