Last update - 00:00 08/08/2007
Calm down
By Alexander Yakobson
"It does not matter what sort of reforms Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann proposes, or whether some of them could improve the functioning of the legal system," begins the Haaretz editorial published on August 3. This sentence is hard to swallow. Let's be serious - it doesn't matter? It really does not matter what sort of reforms he proposes? It does not matter whether some of them might be beneficial? If a proposal, even one made by Daniel Friedmann, has value - would thwarting it not be "punishing" the public?
One could imagine people so satanic that even their beneficial proposals should be rejected. But one should not rush to draw such a conclusion. Haaretz readers surely would have been very surprised had one of the paper's editorials called, for instance, for rejecting out of hand any cease-fire proposal from Hamas, on the grounds that the group is a bitter enemy, and therefore "it does not matter what sort of cease-fires Hamas proposes, or whether some of them could improve the security of Israel's citizens."
The Knesset did not adopt this approach when a large majority - which included some of Friedmann's fiercest opponents, such as Ophir Pines-Paz - recently enacted Friedmann's reform to set term limits for district and magistrate's court presidents. The new law states that they will be appointed for one seven-year term instead of a four-year term that can be extended indefinitely, as was the case until today. This move clearly strengthens judicial independence: Someone whose term may or may not be extended is less independent in his decisions.
Now, Friedmann is trying to change how lower court presidents are appointed. They currently are appointed by the justice minister, with the consent of the Supreme Court president. Without altering this arrangement, the minister also wants to establish a "search committee" to recommend candidates. He would still be the one who decides, conditional on the approval of the Supreme Court president. She may have a harder time rejecting a nominee backed by a professional committee. However, if the search committee has been stacked, it will not be difficult to reject its recommendations,, while if the committee is serious, the minister himself would have trouble not accepting its recommendations. Friedmann's proposal would thus substantially restrict the discretion he has by law.
This is the proposal that set off the latest loud dispute. One can agree or disagree with it, but it is ridiculous to claim that it undermines the foundations of the legal system. It is saddening to see retired justices appearing in the media and, without offering a single substantive argument against the proposal, declaring that an evil Titus is standing at the gates of Israel's palace of justice. The only proposal Friedmann has raised that would limit the Supreme Court's powers is one to allow the Knesset, with a special majority, to reenact a law overturned by the Supreme Court. This idea was raised by former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak, too. That does not mean we are obligated to accept it, but it does mean that not everyone who proposes it is an enemy of the legal system. In any case, the idea was shelved after the chairman of the Knesset Constitution Committee, a coalition member, announced that he opposes it. Thus, there is no basis for the claim that the Knesset is a rubber stamp for any government proposal that harms the court.
In short - the house is not on fire, there is no "emergency," and there is no place for hysteria. And even in the case of an emergency, one should act wisely and with good judgment.