On Saturday night, Justice Minister Yariv Levin published a post on Facebook defending the compromise outline he presented last Thursday, describing it as the best possible solution under the current circumstances. Levin’s post was in response to the harsh criticism he has been facing from right-wingers since unveiling the proposal.
“I understand the desire of opponents to achieve more,” Levin wrote. “I share the position that the original proposal I submitted is the most correct. But this proposal does not have a majority in the Knesset. Therefore, the question is, what is the alternative?”
This week, Judge Yitzhak Amit is expected to be elected as the President of the Supreme Court. However, this does not guarantee that Levin would permit the committee for selecting judges to convene. Levin’s past refusal to convene the committee, pending major changes in its makeup, effectively blocked the appointment of judges not only for the Supreme Court but for all the courts.
On Friday, Kan 11 reported that Acting Supreme Court President Amit made an extraordinary appeal to Justice Minister Levin, urging him to “Work to fill the ranks in the courts as soon as possible.”
Justice Minister Levin and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar are advancing a proposal to reform the composition of the committee for selecting judges. Under the new arrangement, the committee will include three coalition members (two ministers and an MK), one opposition member, three judges, and two lawyers. This structure mirrors the current composition, except for the method of selecting the lawyers.
As part of the reform, the lawyers on the committee will no longer be representatives of the Bar Association. Instead, one lawyer will be appointed by the coalition and the other by the opposition. These lawyers must have at least ten years of litigation experience and will be prohibited from appearing in court during their term on the committee.
BROAD CONSENT
The proposed outline emphasizes appointments by cross-party agreement. A majority of five committee members will be required for all judicial appointments. For lower court appointments, this majority must include at least one coalition member, one opposition member, and one judge.
The Supreme Court representatives on the committee will no longer have veto power over judicial appointments when a majority supports a candidate.
For Supreme Court appointments, a judge must receive the support of at least one coalition member and one opposition member. This means both the coalition and the opposition will hold veto power over Supreme Court appointments, even if a majority in the committee supports the candidate.
LEVIN’S BATTLE CRY
Levin explained in his Facebook post that since the reform was frozen over a year ago, and especially in recent weeks, it has become evident that no other proposal could garner sufficient support. The alternative, he argued, would be inaction—leaving the current judicial system unchanged.
“The term will end, and we will be left with the existing situation of a judicial system whose doors are closed to a very large number of publics,” he warned, highlighting that two-thirds of Supreme Court seats are set to become vacant in the next term, shaping its composition for the next 15 years.
Levin emphasized the significant changes included in his compromise outline:
- Removing the Bar Association from the committee for selecting judges.
- Eliminating the judges’ veto on Supreme Court appointments. Disqualifications like those of Dr. Bakshi, Dr. Biton, and Prof. Gavison will no longer be possible.
- Introducing a full veto for both coalition and opposition members on judicial appointments at all levels, ensuring no single side can dominate decisions.
“This outline represents a historic achievement,” Levin stated, calling it a fundamental shift that would have once seemed unimaginable. He argued that promoting the outline is far superior to doing nothing, as it guarantees progress toward reshaping the judicial system.
Levin concluded by reflecting on his long-standing efforts: “For over twenty years, I have fought to change the system. There is an opportunity here for a major change that ensures diversity in the system, opens its doors to everyone, and achieves broader consensus and unity. We can demand more, but failing to seize this golden opportunity will leave us with years of regret.” He stressed that changing the Judicial Selection Committee is a cornerstone for broader judicial reform.
Right-wing pundit Nadav Ha’Etzni noted in Israel Hayom: “The critical importance of the Judicial Nomination Committee and the outcomes it produces is undeniable. With the façade of impartiality in the appointment system now exposed, Levin and Sa’ar’s proposed outline represents a step in the right direction. The plan shifts significant influence to the political system, yet ensures that no single party can appoint judges unilaterally, necessitating agreements and compromises.
“What remains essential is to guarantee that all appointments prioritize capable and deserving judges, irrespective of their ideological leanings. This goal is not only necessary but entirely achievable under the proposed framework.”
