The Politicisation of the Judicial Process in Israel

When a selection of judges turns out to be a political issue? Is there a connection between court decisions and partisan political pressure to amend the nomination process? With the absence of written constitution and emergence of parliamentary system without checks and balances, the judicial branch in Israel was initially regarded as the weakest arm of government in Israel. Over the years, with the changing nature of voting patterns and the formation of competitive elections and shaky coalitions in the 1980s, the court was frequently asked to intervene in political decisions. In a sense, petitions to the High Court of Justice became another tool for the parliamentary opposition and civil society to have their voice in the formation of public policy. This trend was enhanced following the enactment of the 1992 Basic Laws on human rights, and the consequent 1995 case whereby the Court interpreted these Basic Laws as granting the judiciary the power of judicial review. The Court's power of judicial review and legitimacy of its decisions have become issues of heated public debate. Since then, the process of appointing every single justice to the Court has not gone through without a very strict public and political scrutiny. We will ask whether the Judiciary really constitutes a third independent branch of government. This is so as one can witness continuous attempts to change the existing balance of power and limit the court from applying judicial doctrines and legal standards to executive and parliamentary decisions.