When Israel Supreme Court President Yitzchak Amit says that he will defend the independence of the Supreme Court it is necessary to understand that this "independence" is also from the laws of the State of Israel

When Israel Supreme Court President Yitzchak Amit says that he will defend
the independence of the Supreme Court it is necessary to understand that
this “independence” is also from the laws of the State of Israel.
Dr.. Aaron Lerner 26 May 2025

When Israel Supreme Court President Yitzchak Amit says that he will defend
the independence of the Supreme Court it is necessary to understand that
this “independence” is also from the laws of the State of Israel.

First consider the American standard:

“A judge is obligated to apply the law as it is and not as she wishes it
would be. She is obliged to follow the law even when her personal
preferences cut the other way, or when she will experience great public
criticism for doing so.”
Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United
States, May 2019

When Justice Amit recently made a ruling which was completely at odds with
the law he wasn’t setting a precedent, he was following a tradition.

In the Pinhasi case, Supreme Court Justice Barak chose to claim legal
precedent which didn’t actually exist to support a ruling which was at odds
with the law.

“I believe it is fair to conclude that the ‘lineage’ of the rulings by
Justice Barak in the Pinhasi case and by Justice Mazza in the Deri case does
not withstand scrutiny. In the binding legal material available to us at the
time, these rulings have no foundation for the conclusions reached by the
justices. Even the secondary sources do not provide strong support for these
far-reaching conclusions.”
Ruth Gavison, “The Attorney General: A Critical Look at New Trends,” in
Plilim Vol. 6 (1996), p. 95

Justice Barak has even gone so far as to assert that he is not bound to rule
in a civil case in accordance with the text of a contract signed between two
parties:

“When interpreting a contract one should study what the true and joint
intention of the parties was without being limited to the expressions or
terms which they used. In the conflict between the wording of a contract and
the intention of its drafter the position of the latter take precedence.”
Supreme Court Judge Aharon Barak – Apropim (Supreme Court Appeal 4628/93) 6
April 1995

So this is nothing new.

To be clear, I am not claiming that there is no place for judicial review.

Just that judicial review should be in accordance with the law.

Period.
________________________________________
IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis

Since 1992 providing news and analysis on the Middle East with a focus on
Arab-Israeli relations

Website: www.imra.org.il

Source: https://www.imra.org.il/story.php?id=74341