"Judicial Reforms Led to October 7 Massacre"-- Historian Gadi Taub

Summary

The script discusses the rise of the judiciary's power in Israel, eclipsing elected branches of government. It explains how the judiciary has gained control over appointments and policy, effectively becoming a 'juristocracy'. The speaker criticizes the court's ability to strike down laws and constitutional amendments based on 'unreasonableness' and 'supra constitutional principles', arguing this undermines democracy and allows a leftist elite to exert control beyond elections. The script also touches on the impact of judicial decisions on military policy near the Gaza fence, suggesting a detrimental effect on national security.

Takeaways

• 🏛️ The speaker argues that the judicial system has become more powerful at the expense of elected branches of government, leading to a 'juristocracy'.
• 📈 The rise in judicial power began in 1977 when the labor movement lost power, and decision-making centers started shifting towards the judiciary.
• 👥 The judiciary in the discussed country has a unique structure that allows it to have veto power over the appointment of its own associate judges.
• 🔄 There have been reforms to change the judicial system, but the speaker suggests that the judiciary still retains significant control over appointments.
• 🧬 The speaker implies that the judiciary tends to appoint judges with similar 'DNA' of leftist, progressive stances, perpetuating a certain ideology.
• 🚫 The judiciary has asserted the power to strike down constitutional amendments, positioning itself as an unelected, permanent constitutional convention.
• 📜 The concept of 'Supra constitutional principles' is mentioned, which are not written but are used by judges to determine the constitutionality of laws.
• 🤔 The speaker criticizes the use of the 'reasonable person' standard by the judiciary, suggesting it allows judges to impose their own views on policy and legislation.
• 🔍 The Israeli court is accused of being above the law, with the power to control and influence policy beyond its legal jurisdiction.
• 🛡️ The speaker discusses how the court's decisions have affected military policy, specifically regarding the use of force near the Gaza fence.
• 🔄 The legal reform mentioned is intended to restore power to elected officials and reduce the judiciary's influence over policy-making.

Q & A

What is the main argument presented in the transcript regarding the nature of the current judicial system?

The main argument is that the judicial system has become a 'juristocracy' where the judiciary has gained significant power at the expense of elected branches of government, leading to a system that is not a true democracy.

Why did the labor movement begin transferring decision-making power to the Judiciary in 1977?

The labor movement lost power and feared the rise of fascism. They believed transferring power to the Judiciary, which was still controlled by the old elites, was a way to counter the right-wing's growing influence in elected branches.

What is the significance of the Judiciary's veto power over the appointment of its own associate judges?

This veto power allows the Judiciary to maintain control over its composition, essentially serving as a preserve for those who cannot win in electoral politics, thus perpetuating a certain ideological stance within the judicial system.

How has the Judiciary acquired control over appointments in the Civil Service?

The Judiciary has gradually acquired power through reforms that have shifted control over appointments from elected branches to itself, thereby extending its influence over the state apparatus.

What is the role of legal advisors to ministers in the current system?

Legal advisors have veto power over the ministers' policies on grounds of legality and reasonableness. This allows them to block any policy that the court may not favor, effectively giving the Judiciary control over ministerial policy.

Why is the court's ability to strike down Constitutional Amendments significant?

This ability positions the court as an unelected, permanent Constitutional Convention, allowing it to decide the rules of the game and regulate its own authority and that of other branches of government.

What are 'Supra constitutional principles' and why are they problematic?

Supra constitutional principles are unwritten principles that the court claims govern the Constitutional structure of the state. They are problematic because they are beyond the reach of parliament and elected representatives, giving unelected judges the power to interpret and enforce them.

How has the court's interpretation of 'reasonableness' expanded its power?

The court has stretched the concept of reasonableness to include the judge's personal view of what is reasonable, allowing it to strike down laws and policies not based on legality but on whether the judge deems them to be a good idea.

What is the impact of the court's control over military policy, as seen in the Gaza perimeter situation?

The court's influence has led to the erosion of military deterrence, with the Israeli Defense Forces altering their rules of engagement to gain court approval, which has resulted in a more permissive approach to Palestinian demonstrations near the Gaza fence.

What is the intended goal of the legal reform mentioned in the transcript?

The legal reform aims to shift sovereignty back to elected officials, reducing the Judiciary's control over policy and legislation, and restoring the balance of power in the government.

How does the speaker describe the current situation where ministers receive legal advice?

Ministers receive legal advice from advisors who are supposed to be part of the executive branch but often answer to the court. This allows the court to indirectly control policy by influencing the advice given to ministers.