Thursday, August 09, 2007

The Israeli Supreme Court is at it again

Naomi Blumenthal was convicted of bribery and was sentenced to a few months in jail. She appealed to the president for clemency because of her personal situation (her husband died etc.) and the President agreed and canceled her jail term. The organization for good government petitioned the Supreme Court to cancel the clemency.

The law (a Basic law) specifically gives the President the power to grant clemency with no reservations. In other words, there is no absolutely no room for the court's intervention. The law give the President the power of clemency with no reservations. The fact that the court even agreed to hear the case is a travesty.

Bill Clinton before he left office pardoned a whole bunch of people including Marc Rich. There was a lot of criticism but no one would have dreamed of appealing to the Supreme Court and if someone would have they would have been throw it. There is simply no legal issue. The President has the absolute right to pardon who he wants, the same thing applies in Israel. The fact that the court is even hearing the case highlights the judicial tyranny of the Supreme Court in Israel.


abiebaby said...

Good post!

Judicial tyranny is just as bad as (actually worse than) dictatorship, such as in Syria or the former Soviet Union.

The Knesset representing the sovereign people of Israel, must abolish the Supreme Court and replace it with a court that is even more specifically bound to uphold the rule of law, as enacted by the Knesset. The Knesset legislation must specifically provide that no court in the judicial system may act or decide contrary to any law duly enacted by the Knesset and that legislation duly enacted by the Knesset is the supreme law of the land.

The Knesset needs the courage to stand up for itself as the representative of the sovereignty of the people of Israel.

abiebaby said...

In my previous comment I forgot one important thing:

The new court's (indeed, all Israeli courts') jurisdiction should be strictly limited to hearing and deciding "cases and controversies" [see U.S. Constitution, Article III], requiring "standing" for the courts to accept and decide a case. This "standing" rule would prevent the court from become a "central complaint bureau" for any disgruntled person who doesn't like a government decision or action.