“Israel’s” Chaos: Supreme Court Convenes for Overhaul Hearing

By Staff, Agencies

“Israel” remains on edge in a tense day as all 15 “justices” of the so-called “Supreme Court” convened in Occupied Al-Quds [Jerusalem] for a high-stakes hearing to consider petitions against the “reasonableness law” curbing the top court’s power to exercise “judicial” review over government decisions and appointments.

Tuesday’s hearing — positioned as part of an unprecedented clash between the court and Zionist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government over its planned ‘overhaul of the judiciary’ — started at 9 am and will likely stretch well into the afternoon.

No ruling is expected for several weeks or possibly months, but the session will be closely watched in the Zionist entity.

Shortly before proceedings began, “Justice” Minister Yariv Levin issued a statement claiming the hearing was taking place “with the complete lack of authority” and constitutes “a mortal blow to the status of the Knesset.”

“The court, whose justices elect themselves behind closed doors and without a protocol, is placing itself above the government, above the Knesset, above the people and above the law,” he said.

Levin argued that rather than the government’s judicial overhaul, it is the High Court hearing which “shakes the foundations of democracy in 'Israel'.”

In his own statement Tuesday morning, Opposition Leader Yair Lapid argued that the government’s “reasonableness law isn’t a Basic Law” and doesn’t even “resemble a Basic Law.”

“This is an irresponsible document on which somebody wrote ‘Basic Law,’ and they have since demanded it be treated as a holy scripture,” Lapid said, calling the legislation “deviant and thuggish” and saying it was pushed through the Knesset “in a process that was violent, rushed, sloppy, boisterous and unrestrained, and which has nothing to do with Basic Laws.”

Lapid added that “those who want ‘Basic Laws’ to be treated with awe should start by legislating them in an adequate process. Basic Laws have a procedure. A minimum of respect for the process. This minimum didn’t happen. Not even close.”

The divisive “law” cancels the court’s ability to block government actions and appointments.