When judges are sworn-in at the President's Residence, they recite the oath of office, pledging allegiance to the "State of Israel and its laws." They also vow "not to pervert justice or judge with partiality."
In light of the oath they take, you would expect judges to consider it paramount to apply a narrow interpretation of the law and not to ignore it, except when there are truly unusual circumstances.
The Supreme Court has traditionally been lenient in its interpretation of Basic Law: The Knesset, which prohibits anti-democratic and racist candidates from participating in elections.
That is, until this week, when it decided to apply a double standard: It disqualified far-right candidate Michael Ben Ari while letting radical-left candidates run.
In 1965, the Supreme Court disqualified the Socialist List associated with the Al-Ard movement because it rejected Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state even though the laws at the time did not make it illegal to propagate such ideology.
At the time, the court explained that the state had the right to defend itself from those who wanted to destroy it and didn't even bother to cite any specific law.
In 1985, after then MK Meir Kahane began promoting his anti-Arab agenda in the Knesset and several lawmakers expressed support for then-Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat, the Knesset passed a law that empowered the Central Elections Committee to disqualify candidates and parties that reject Israel's existence as a Jewish or democratic state, or that incite to racism.
The law led to Kahane and his followers being disqualified ahead of the 1988 and 1992 elections. But the Supreme Court, which is required by law to make a final ruling on any disqualification, has consistently refused to ban Arab parties and candidates from running despite their express support for Israel's enemies and endorsement of terrorism against Israel.
And this, despite the fact that the law was amended again to make it explicitly clear that supporting an armed struggle against Israel was also grounds for disqualification.
The court has ignored the law even after outgoing MK Hanin Zoabi joined the Gaza-bound Mavi Marmara flotilla in 2010, when participants brutally attacked Israeli troops.
She was allowed twice to run since that incident after judges said her actions did not amount to a "critical mass" that reached the level of disqualification.
The court also approved the candidacy of former Balad MK Azmi Bishara multiple times. He ultimately fled the country after he was accused of spying for Hezbollah.
In other cases, the court approved the candidacy of those who signed manifests calling for negating Israel's character as a Jewish democracy and those that proudly had their picture taken with convicted, jailed terrorists.
Thus, it is clear that the Supreme Court went out of its way to find a creative interpretation to the basic law, choosing to ignore its literal and explicit prohibitions, and until this week, we could at least take comfort knowing that it applied this standard across the board, letting controversial candidates from both sides run.
But on Sunday, the court applied a much more stringent standard to Ben Ari's candidacy, while letting the Arab party Balad and Hadash candidate Ofer Cassif run.
This double standard clearly underscores the damage that can be done by a legal system that ignores the law. The damage begins with a "wide" interpretation of the law, albeit in a consistent manner and across the board, but then it gets worse when interpretation becomes selective and only applies to the Right.
The decision will not hurt Ben Ari or his would-be voters and won't even hurt the court in any real sense. The real victims are Israelis by and large who may no longer believe that they can get a fair shake in court.
The erosion in trust shakes the very foundations of our democracy and hurts all of us. To restore this trust, we must strengthen the rule of law by applying a textualist interpretation across the board.
