It's hard to believe that the Court did anything wrong. It is their job to rule in cases before them in accordance with the law. Should Rivlin's real criticism be interpreted as being of the decision to form a Basic Law of (nearly) constitutional proportions in the first place, which bound the Court to strike down laws that were not in accordance with it?
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
U.S., allies conduct 22 strikes against ISIS targets in Iraq, Syria (Reuters)
from the article: Rivlin planning to slam High Court, and bills against it