On Thursday, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked celebrated her achievements in diversifying the Supreme Court. Just a few hours later and two of her bench appointments issued irregular rulings mandating the court's intervention in the state's decisions, by tying the government's hands and stalling, for an indefinite period, the appointment processes for the next chiefs of the IDF and Israel Police.
In their brief ruling, Justices Ofer Grosskopf, Menachem Mazuz and David Mintz issued interim and conditional injunctions against the state and against the appointments of Iris Stark, vice president of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants in Israel, and former National Security Adviser Jacob Nagel to the advisory committee on appointments of senior public servants.
The political and publicized petition filed by the Movement for Integrity didn't include even one legal argument justifying such a far-reaching measure, and it grossly undermines the public interest in ensuring proper protocol in the IDF and police. Despite the fact that the petitioners failed to present any substantial factual argument that would necessitate a legal decision of this type, the justices chose yet again to infringe on the government's obvious jurisdiction.
The petitioners didn't provide nary an indication of possible conflicting interests or even a reasonable explanation for objecting to Nagel's appointment. Regarding Stark, the primary argument against her appointment was her failure to report a 5,000-shekel donation she gave Minister Gila Gamliel in 2012. Which begs the question, why does Stark's small donation from years ago constitute such a grave conflict of interest as to warrant her removal from the consultation committee?
What's worse, the petitioners argue that Stark and Nagel's extensive public experience, which includes working with and for government bodies, disqualifies them from advising the government.
In other words: The justices adopted the absurd position that vast experience in the public sector disqualifies a person from advising on senior appointments in the public sector. Kafka couldn't have said it better.
The absurdity reached record proportions as the justices defiantly ignored the fact that the petition deals with appointing members of the advisory committee – whose job is to help the government make senior appointments – rather than the committee with the authority to make the actual appointments. The advisory committee was established to help the government, not restrict it. Now, in the name of "protecting" the committee, the court has tied the government's hands and stripped it of its undeniable authorities.
The creation of the advisory committee, it's important to note, was strictly a government initiative and it's completely within the government's purview to disband it and return to the previously accepted process whereby members of the government decided alone on appointments. Thus, for example, Yehuda Weinstein was appointed attorney general in 2009 without the advisory committee's recommendation due to a lack of agreement among its members. It appears the justices have now pushed the government into a corner of having to make a similar decision – all to protect the public's interest proper adherence to protocol within vital governmental bodies.
