Ironically, in making the ruling on
New Year’s Day of 2024 striking down Prime Minister Netanyahu’s amendment to the
country’s basic law that would have removed the judiciary’s authority of judicial
review of laws based on their reasonableness, Israel’s Supreme Court too unreasonably
exploited a conflict of interest. Basic Law, which is
essentially constitutional law, includes the basic architecture of a
government, such as how the executive, legislative, and judicial functions are
related. Self-interest being a salient feature of human nature, we can assume
that the governmental functionaries in each of those functions naturally seek
to expand their respective jurisdictions relative to those of the other two. I
contend that to give one or two of those areas the last word in altering the
division of authority involves a conflict of interest. This applies to a
constitutional court. Therefore, even though democracy is served by a judicial
decision striking down an attempt by the executive and/or legislature to eviscerate
the authority of the judiciary to act as a check, giving the latter the last word
is fraught with entanglements.
The full essay is at "Israel's Supreme Court: A Conflict of Interest."
