‘Israeli’ AG Says Minister Should Be Able to File New Response In ‘Judicial’ Panel Case

By Staff, Agencies

The Zionist entity’s Attorney General, Gali Baharav-Miara, on Friday came out against so-called ‘Justice’ Minister Yariv Levin’s bid to cancel an interim injunction demanding he explain his decision not to convene the ‘Judicial’ Selection Committee, but backed his request to submit a further response on the matter to the so-called ‘High Court of Justice.’

After the order was issued Wednesday, Levin immediately submitted a request asking the court to annul its decision, arguing that the interim injunction — which stated that the ‘justices’ would use the minister’s preliminary response as his substantive response in the case — violated proper court procedure and was silencing him.

Baharav-Miara partially sided with Levin in a legal opinion filed on her behalf Friday, stating that according to court regulations, he should be allowed to submit a new, substantive response to the court.

“There is need to cancel the injunction, but the ‘justice’ minister and the government should be allowed to submit an additional response, in which they can elaborate as they see necessary on the [preliminary] response they already submitted,” the attorney general said.

Levin has refused to convene the 'Judicial' Selection Committee, which appoints all ‘judges’ in the Zionist entity, as he seeks changes to its composition in order to grant the government near-total control of the panel, part of a wider effort to water down the independence of the 'judiciary,' which the minister considers overly activist.

Baharav-Miara has refused to defend the government’s position in court and said in her original submission that Levin had an obligation to convene the committee. “Refusal to do so violated his obligation to exercise the authority he holds “in due time,” and constituted an illegitimate form of veto over ‘judicial’ appointments,” she argued.

The High Court’s session on Levin’s refusal to convene the panel will be held a week after ‘judges’ hear arguments for and against the “reasonableness” ‘law’ passed at the end of July, which bars judicial review of government decisions and appointments on the basis of the reasonableness doctrine.

According to a Channel 13 poll Wednesday, 68 percent of respondents trust the Supreme Court, while 28% do not.

Furthermore, 50% answered that the court should side with petitioners against the reasonableness ‘law,’ 37% said they shouldn’t get involved, and 13% did not have an opinion.