1.
If the court doesn't reject the petition filed by the Movement for Integrity and fine it the maximum court fees for filing a false appeal, it means it wants to deliberate the legality of the democratic decision made by Israeli citizens when they voted two weeks ago. In other words, the court could impose sovereignty over the voter. That is to say: A coup d'état.
We go to elections and choose our representatives as we see fit. And then the court comes along and wants to discuss whether that choice was reasonable or not. In other words, the judges will determine if the people chose correctly. To be sure, the public was aware of the suspicions against the prime minister and voted for him anyway, so the court now wants to make that call for us?
2.
It's patently unreasonable for the court to accept such an absurd petition by saying "we'll discuss it and see," even if it eventually rejects it. The very act of discussing something that is not legitimate detracts from the ability to perform justice. The intended idea behind any such deliberation – even one that results in rejecting the appeal – is to make a mockery of our elected officials and teach them who is boss: Not the citizens who cast their ballots, but the court. This is how you delegitimize the public's decision and the government it wants.
The nation-state law is another example. Indeed, the court lacks the authority to debate the validity of a Basic Law, an idea which itself is predicated on the judicial revolution forced upon us by former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak in his determination that Basic Laws trump regular laws. And yet, for months now the court has held the nation-state law at knifepoint by refusing to throw out the ridiculous appeal against it, effectively contributing to its delegitimization.
3.
This game is getting old. If the court doesn't reject the appeal outright without any deliberation, it will prove it no longer understands the boundaries of its power and the fact that it doesn't run the country.
The fundamental problem is that many in the judicial system struggle to parse their own values, askew as they may be, from an objective interpretation of the law. Who decides which values and worldviews are adopted by the State of Israel? Not the judges; only the people through their representatives, who after deliberations, arguments and agreements, make laws. These are the rules of the game. But the court treats these rules as mere suggestions; because for those hailing from Barak's school of thought, what ultimately matters is the judge's interpretation of the law's wording, which often times coincides with the most radical liberal ideas.
4.
This appeal falls in line with recent warnings issued by judiciary officials against MK Yariv Levin's possible appointment as justice minister, which stems from the hubris afflicting these self-appointed gatekeepers of a fictional state. The clerks want to rob the citizens of their ability to rule the country through their elected representatives. We, after all, understand what they are protecting here – and it's not the judiciary. There isn't a sane, responsible person in this country who doesn't want a strong, independent judiciary. The people angrily defending the court are essentially defending politicization of the law; they are defending the absurd, where on one hand they speak loftily of the need for checks and balances, and on the other hand the judicial system allows itself to intervene in all matters of state while the legislative branch (the Knesset) and the executive branch (the government) have no say over the judiciary branch. This is a fundamental detriment to democracy. This glaring imbalance needs to be fixed. Our future depends on it.
