(21 February 2023)
Our Declaration of Independence promises that the State of Israel “will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture…”
As of today, those foundational commitments and guarantees are under direct and tangible threat, from the very government charged with upholding them.
The reasonableness law, an amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary, prohibits courts, including the High Court, from reviewing government and ministerial decisions using the „reasonableness“ standard. This standard permits the court to annul decisions based on substantive issues with the considerations behind them.
It was passed last year amid furious protests that saw hundreds of thousands Israelis take to rallies in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and elsewhere across Israel.
– Twelve out of 15 Supreme Court judges ruled that the court has the authority to conduct judicial oversight on basic laws and intervene in extreme cases when the Knesset oversteps its legislative authority.
– The law was the first piece of legislation of Netanyahu‘s judicial overhaul — a plan that destabilized Israel‘s economy, military and foreign relations.
The Supreme Court struck down the law in an 8-7 vote.
Twelve of the 15 justices agree the court does have the authority to strike down Basic Laws.
(38 min ago)
Hebrew media outlets report that the High Court of Justice will publish its ruling on the government’s “reasonableness law” this evening and that it will strike down the controversial legislation, which is an amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary.
This would be the first time the court strikes down any aspect of one of Israel’s Basic Laws, which have quasi-constitutional status.
Lawmakers from the Shas coalition party are reportedly seeking to advance a bill that would temporarily extend the time in which High Court justices can publish rulings on petitions, allowing the bench to postpone a decision that is widely expected to strike down a piece of the government’s judicial overhaul.
In an unprecedented leak, a draft ruling published last week previewed the court’s intention to strike down, by an 8-7 vote, a law limiting the court’s ability to reverse government and ministerial decisions based on the doctrine of reasonableness.
“The judiciary views very severely the leak of parts of draft rulings that have not been completed,” acting Supreme Court President Uzi Vogelman said of the leak. “The attempt to influence pending proceedings and to harm public trust in the judiciary and its dedicated judges and employees will not succeed.” The final ruling is expected to arrive midway through January.
The report drew immediate, heated reactions, with coalition members chastising the expected decision and casting it as undermining the national unity being displayed during the ongoing war against Hamas. The group that petitioned for the law to be nullified claimed the leak was an attempt to intimidate the justices and push them to change their ruling and not void the legislation.
The leaked draft revealed an apparent 8-7 split among the 15-justice panel, indicating eight justices in favor of annulling the law and seven against
The justices who reportedly support the nullification are: former president Esther Hayut, current care-taker president Uzi Vogelman, Isaac Amit, Anat Baron, Ofer Grosskopf, Chaled Kabub, Daphne Barak-Erez and Ruth Ronnen.
The opponents are reported to be Noam Sohlberg, Yechiel Meir Kasher, Yosef Elron, Alex Stein, Yael Willner, David Mintz and Gila Canfy Steinitz.
Each judge will now read the opinions of the other justices before a final decision is reached. There is a chance, though slim, that the result will be different if a justice changes his or her mind after reading the other verdicts, Channel 12 reported.
(14.11.2023)
Members of the Judicial Appointments Committee are looking into the option of initiating a motion to elect Justice Isaac Amit as the president of the Supreme Court, despite the opposition of Justice Minister Yariv Levin.
(November 12, 2023)
(November 5, 2023)
In a letter from his lawyer to the Supreme Court, Justice Minister Yariv Levin pledged to convene the Judicial Appointments Committee within 15 days. The court had been scheduled to hear challenges to his hold-ups, which have resulted in backlogs in filling vacated bench positions.
„The justice minister believes there is no justification for being preoccupied with disputes during a war,“ the letter said.
The compromise, as reported, aimed to freeze all further judicial overhaul legislation in return for granting the coalition more power on the Judicial Selection Committee in the form of veto power on the selection of the Supreme Court president and lower court judges.
But today’s report says Netanyahu was adamant that any freeze still allow a potential “override clause” to be legislated with a regular majority, in the event that the High Court of Justice nullifies the government’s law shielding the premier from being ordered by courts or the attorney general to step down.
Just a month before she retires, Supreme Court President Esther Hayut will conduct the battle of her life, and the decision she presides over will shape the life of the entire nation.
The announcement of the government’s narrowing of the Reasonableness Standard was received by Hayut in Germany, where she was visiting along with a group of Supreme Court justices. They cut short the visit and returned to Israel.
(13.01.2022)
Administrative agencies are creatures of statute. They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided. The Secretary has ordered 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense. This is no “everyday exercise of federal power.” In re MCP No. 165, 20 F. 4th, at 272 (Sutton, C. J., dissenting). It is instead a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees. “We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.” Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 594
U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (per curiam) (slip op., at 6) (internal quotation marks omitted). There can be little doubt that OSHA’s mandate qualifies as an exercise of such authority. The question, then, is whether the Act plainly authorizes the Secretary’s mandate. It does not. The Act empowers the Secretary to set workplace safety standards, not broad public health measures.
(…)
The Solicitor General does not dispute that OSHA is limited to regulating “work-related dangers.” Response Brief for OSHA in No. 21A244 etc., p. 45 (OSHA Response). She instead argues that the risk of contracting COVID–19 qualifies as such a danger. We cannot agree. Although COVID–19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.
(5.Dezember 2021)
Nach dem Putsch-Urteil 1 BvR 781/21 des Bundesverfassungsgerichts ist der Systemwechsel offiziell. Faktisch erklären die von der Merkel-Einheitsregierung in sechzehn langen Jahren in das höchste Verfassungsorgan bugsierten Roten Roben, dass im Grundgesetz gar nicht drin steht was da drin steht und der Staat alles mit den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern machen kann – er muss nur sagen, es sei notwendig. Grenzen dafür setzen die Verfassungsrichterinnen und -Richter nicht.
(…)
Wenn Ihr, liebe Leserinnen und Leser, nicht lest, oder wenn Ihr zwar lest, aber Euch nicht in der Lage seht es ausreichend weiter zu erzählen bzw. einen einzigen Abgeordneten / eine einzige Abgeordnete in Bundestag und sechzehn Landtagen zu finden, der / die lesen und die Zahlen der Regierung überprüfen will, kann ich Euch nicht helfen. Meine Arbeit ist getan.
Was Ihr natürlich auch noch machen könnt: die wenigen mehr oder weniger unabhängigen Journalistinnen und Journalisten ansprechen, die sich eventuell in der Lage sehen könnten, sich diesem alles entscheidenden Detail zu widmen, so dass sich wiederum ein einziger Parlamentarier irgendwann zur Gewaltenteilung genötigt sehen könnte (von irgendwelchen Parteien oder Gerichten will ich gar nicht mehr reden):
(30.November 2021)
4. setzt sich jedoch über den Wortlaut des Grundgesetzes „teleologisch“ (aus Gründen des Sinns und Zwecks) hinweg und gestattet flächendeckende Ausgangssperren. Wenn der Wortlaut nicht passt, wird er passend gemacht.
5. Dabei übersieht Karlsruhe die historischen Erfahrungen, die 1949 dazu führten, derartige Ausgangssperren zu verbieten.
6. Karlsruhe setzt keine „roten Linien“. Es wird aus der gesamten Entscheidung nicht erkennbar, wie weit denn der Gesetzgeber bei der Corona-Politik gehen darf. Ein Freifahrtschein für die Regierenden.
Soweit die Beschwerdeführenden in den Verfahren 1 BvR 781/21 und 1 BvR 854/21 sich durch die Ausgangsbeschränkung nach § 28b Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 2 IfSG in ihrem Recht auf Freizügigkeit aus Art. 11 Abs. 1 GG verletzt sahen, genügt der bloße Vortrag, sich nachts nicht mehr frei im Bundesgebiet bewegen zu dürfen oder dass ein Eingriff in die Freizügigkeit „auf der Hand“ liege, den Begründungsanforderungen nicht. Insbesondere zeigen sie nicht anhand der verfassungsrechtlichen Maßstäbe (vgl. dazu BVerfGE 134, 242 <323 ff. Rn. 251 ff.>) auf, inwieweit die Freizügigkeit durch die angegriffene Maßnahme verletzt sein soll. Ebenso wenig genügt der pauschale Vortrag des Beschwerdeführers im Verfahren 1 BvR 854/21, eine Verletzung der Versammlungsfreiheit (Art. 8 GG) durch die Ausgangsbeschränkungen liege „auf der Hand“. Auch der Beschwerdeführer zu 3) im Verfahren 1 BvR 805/21 zeigt, soweit es ihm um die Möglichkeit des Fotografierens bei Dämmerung und Dunkelheit geht, eine mögliche Verletzung der Kunstfreiheit (Art. 5 Abs. 3 GG) durch § 28b Abs. 1 Satz 1 Nr. 2 IfSG nicht substantiiert auf.
Im Verfahren 1 BvR 798/21 genügt die Verfassungsbeschwerde den Darlegungsanforderungen nicht, soweit eine Verletzung der körperlichen Unversehrtheit (Art. 2 Abs. 2 Satz 1 GG), des Gleichheitsgrundsatzes (Art. 3 Abs. 1 GG) und der Menschenwürde (Art. 1 Abs. 1 GG) des Beschwerdeführers gerügt wird. Der Beschwerdeführer zeigt nicht auf, dass der täglich verbleibende Zeitraum von 19 Stunden für sportliche Betätigung im Freien nicht ausreicht, um diesen für die gesundheitsförderlichen Effekte des Sports zu nutzen.
(…)
aa) Der eine Einschränkung der Fortbewegungsfreiheit „durch Gesetz“ nicht enthaltende Wortlaut der Schrankenregelungen in Art. 2 Abs. 2 Satz 3 und Art. 104 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GG könnte nahelegen, dass dem parlamentarischen Gesetzgeber Eingriffe in dieses Freiheitsrecht unmittelbar durch Gesetz nicht zugänglich sind. Zwingend ist dieses Verständnis des Wortlauts aber nicht. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat der weitgehend gleichlautenden Schrankenausgestaltung in Art. 10 Abs. 2 Satz 1 GG keine solche Bedeutung zugemessen und einen Eingriff in Art. 10 Abs. 1 GG unmittelbar durch Gesetz für damit vereinbar gehalten (vgl. BVerfGE 125, 260 <313>).
Aus der Entstehungsgeschichte ergibt sich kein klares Bild zu der Frage, ob aus der allein Eingriffe „aufgrund eines Gesetzes“ gestattenden Schrankenregelung ein Verwaltungsvorbehalt folgt (vgl. Bumke, Der Grundrechtsvorbehalt, 1998, S. 199). Bei Berücksichtigung der Entstehungsgeschichte der Grundrechtsschranken im Parlamentarischen Rat kann dem Wortlaut der entsprechenden Schrankenausgestaltung ebenfalls kein starkes Gewicht zukommen. Es fehlte an einem System der verschiedenen Schrankenregelungen in dem Sinne, dass Gehalt und Wirkungen des Verfassungstextes bei gleicher sprachlicher Fassung jeweils gleich zu verstehen wären und umgekehrt (vgl. Hermes, in: Merten/Papier, HGRe, Bd. III, 2009, § 63 Rn. 3). Erwägungen des Redaktionsausschusses des Parlamentarischen Rates zur Schrankengestaltung, man bevorzuge die Formulierung „auf Grund eines Gesetzes“, weil bei der Wendung „durch Gesetz“ Beschränkungen nur durch ein Gesetz angeordnet werden könnten und eine gesetzliche Ermächtigung einer Behörde ausgeschlossen sei (Deutscher Bundestag und Bundesarchiv
(…)
Die prozeduralen und materiellen Sicherungen des Art. 104 Abs. 1 GG sind in den Fällen erforderlich, in denen die staatliche Gewalt unmittelbaren körperlichen Zugriff auf eine Person hat. Da nunmehr aber auch gesetzliche Maßnahmen, die für sich genommen niemals körperliche Zwangswirkung zu entfalten vermögen, als Eingriffe gelten können, wenn von ihnen dem körperlichen Zwang ähnliche Wirkungen ausgehen (oben Rn. 246), hat dies Konsequenzen für das Verständnis des Schrankenvorbehalts. Nichts spricht dafür, dass Art. 2 Abs. 2 Satz 2 und Art. 104 Abs. 1 GG nach ihrem Zweck gegenüber dem Gesetzgeber ein absolutes, uneinschränkbares Recht begründen soll. Wird der Gesetzgeber selbst unmittelbar an dieses Grundrecht gebunden, muss er umgekehrt auch von der vorgesehenen Beschränkungsmöglichkeit Gebrauch machen können. Der Schrankenvorbehalt steht dem nicht entgegen. Bei Eingriffen in die Fortbewegungsfreiheit unmittelbar durch Gesetz droht kein mit dem Schutzzweck der Schranken unvereinbarer Verlust an Rechtsschutz. Die gesetzliche Anordnung des Freiheitseingriffs schafft keine Lage, die die Schutzmechanismen des Art. 104 Abs. 1 Satz 1 zweiter Halbsatz und Satz 2 GG auslösen müsste. Teleologische Gründe sprechen daher bei einem erweiterten Eingriffsverständnis dagegen, die Schrankenregelungen in Art. 2 Abs. 2 Satz 3 und Art. 104 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GG kompetenziell als Verwaltungsvorbehalt auszulegen.
(,,,)
Umfassende Ausgangsbeschränkungen kommen nur in einer äußersten Gefahrenlage in Betracht. Hier war die Entscheidung des Gesetzgebers für die hier angegriffenen Maßnahmen in der konkreten Situation der Pandemie und nach den auch in diesen Verfahren durch die sachkundigen Dritten bestätigten Erkenntnissen zu den Wirkungen der Maßnahmen und zu den großen Gefahren für Leben und Gesundheit tragfähig begründet und mit dem Grundgesetz vereinbar.
Die Entscheidung ist einstimmig ergangen.
Harbarth
Paulus
Baer
Britz
Ott
Christ
Radtke
Härtel
„We have all already expressed our opinion, I‘ve talked with Israel’s prime minister and also with Israel’s president. I‘ve clearly stated that I think a majority cannot decide things for a minority, and that in a proper democracy, a minority should always be able to live without fear.“
He added, „That‘s how we decided to do it in the German constitution, in many ways following the terrible experience we had. There‘s a constitution that can only be changed with a two-thirds majority. When we elect judges, we do it with a large majority – not just a regular majority.“
The Shin Bet security service reportedly warned Sunday of mounting threats against Supreme Court President Esther Hayut and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, both of whom have been central targets of right-wing figures for their opposition to certain government moves.
The warnings were expressed during a situational assessment held by the agency Sunday, Channel 13 news reported.
Supreme Court President Esther Hayut observed that the “fingerprints” of a plan designed to prevent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from being ordered to recuse himself were “very clear,” while her fellow panel member Justice Uzi Vogelman said simply that “the fact is the law is personal.”
The court’s three most senior justices presided over Thursday’s five-hour hearing, in a case in which, for the first time ever, the attorney general has joined petitioners in asking for a Basic Law to be canceled.
When cabinet ministers, under the leadership and guidance of the prime minister and justice minister, two human demons who have taken over the state, insult and denounce the High Court of Justice merely for hearing petitions (which it could end up rejecting), Israel can no longer be seen as a democratic, liberal state. Nor is it Jewish, because what Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir and Eliyahu and Strock represent is not Judaism. It is messianism, racism and degradation.
Netanyahu, who has refused to answer questions from the Israeli media has been giving interviews to American Networks. „I think we have to follow two rules. One is that Israeli governments abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court and the at the same time the Supreme Court respects the basic laws which are the closes thing we have to a constitution. I think we should keep both principles.“
Der Staat Israel hat keine Verfassung und fußt dagegen auf einer Sammlung von Grundgesetzen.
Bei der im Parlament beschlossenen Abschaffung des sogenannten Angemessenheitsstandards handelt es sich um eine Änderung eines dieser Grundgesetze. In Israels Geschichte wurde bisher noch nie ein vergleichbares Gesetz vom Obersten Gericht einkassiert. Sollte dies nun geschehen und die Regierung die Entscheidung nicht akzeptieren, droht dem Land eine Staatskrise.
After the abolishment of the reasonableness clause last week, the High Court did not issue an interim injunction to freeze the amendment to the law. According to Justice David Mintz’s decision, the hearing will take place after the court’s recess, before the departure of Justices Hayut and Anat Baron, who are considered liberal judges, in October.
It was also decided that the government and the Knesset will submit their responses to the petitions up to ten days before the hearing.
(28.07.2023)
“I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” Alito told the Journal. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”
Although the Constitution enables Congress to structure the lower federal courts, it explicitly vests judicial power within a singular Supreme Court.
(…)
The piece also revealed Alito’s first public comments on the recent ethics push since he authored an op-ed for the same paper that was shared just before a ProPublica investigation into an undisclosed Alaskan fishing trip the justice accepted in 2008 paid for by a conservative donor was made public.
(04.07.2023)
As Democrats reel from another painful set of defeats at the Supreme Court in recent weeks, President Biden is facing renewed pressure from a range of elements in his party, from liberal lawmakers to abortion rights activists, to more forcefully embrace far-reaching changes to the high court.
Until now, the High Court has never invalidated any Basic Law. Only “regular laws” that violate Basic Laws have been disqualified. Therefore, striking down the legislation passed Monday would be an unprecedented move.
“There already are legislative initiatives meant to increase political involvement in appointing judges, as well as curtailing the Supreme Court’s authority, apparently for the purpose of preventing judicial review of government actions…all I can say is this: first, this is a crude threat, unseen heretofore by the judiciary, meant apparently to influence its rulings; second, these steps are a surefire recipe for critically damaging democracy and for perpetuating corruption.”
These pointed words were written in 2008 by Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levi, who was part of the panel hearing a petition against a decision by then-Attorney General Menachem Mazuz to grant a lenient plea bargain to former President Moshe Katsav.
(9 July 2023)
“There’s no intelligence, no arrest on the nights [of the protests], no investigations of [former Supreme Court chief justice] Aharon Barak or Ehud Barak. You’re hurting? Protest — just like people have since the establishment of the state. But why riot? It’s lawlessness,” he said, adding: “Ehud Barak, in my opinion, should have been in the interrogation room some time ago.
The petition, filed on April 19, 2023, is supported by a number of former political and military leaders, including former Chief of Staff Dan Halutz.
The Supreme Court’s decision comes amid Netanyahu’s attempts to bring about changes to the judiciary, even though he is on trial in three criminal cases.
Attorney General Ghali Bharav Miara warned Netanyahu last March against interfering in amendments to the judiciary, as he is prohibited from doing so due to his appearance in corruption cases.
The petition was filed by 39 senior figures from various fields, including Israel Defense Forces former Chief- of-Staff Dan Halutz.
On Thursday afternoon, it was announced that the High Court agreed to hear the petition.
(27 March 2023)
In an interview recorded Saturday night, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted his government’s planned judicial overhaul was necessary as the Supreme Court is “too powerful,” claiming the controversial attempts to neuter the court would result in a “stronger democracy.”
While the interview was expected to air Monday evening, it was released online hours earlier amid concerns it was fast becoming outdated as the country was roiled by mass protests and Netanyahu was expected to announce a freeze to the controversial overhaul.
As Democrats reel from another painful set of defeats at the Supreme Court in recent weeks, President Biden is facing renewed pressure from a range of elements in his party, from liberal lawmakers to abortion rights activists, to more forcefully embrace far-reaching changes to the high court.
(29.06.2023)
BIDEN: Oh, I think they may do too much harm, but I think, if we start the process of trying to expand the court, we‘re going to politicize it, maybe forever, in a way that is not healthy.
WALLACE: That you can‘t get back?
BIDEN: That I can‘t get back.
And I think — look, I think — maybe it‘s just the optimist in me. I think that some of the court are beginning to realize their legitimacy is being questioned in ways it hadn‘t been questioned in the past. And I think there‘s a concern on some, maybe even the chief justice, that maybe, maybe we better…
(29.06.2023)
„A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination,“ Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. „In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race.“
„Many universities have for too long done just the opposite,“ Roberts continued. „And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.“