Israel has no Supreme Court (Part II)

---

Part II Video Coming Soon

STOLEN BANK ACCOUNT: Imagine, you have a bank account. And one day the bank says this account is now joint, you have a partner. With your wife? your husband? your kids?

No, with the bank. The bank is now your partner. And time passes and the bank becomes more than a partner, it takes over your account. They issue you credit cards and offer you a mortgage from your own account. They're lending you your own money.

So are you going to go into the bank and negotiate, why is this credit card interest so high? Why is this mortgage rate not competitive? No! You're going to go in and scream and say, "hey, you stole my account and now you have the chutzpah to lend me my own money - and not even at good rates!"

So why is it that after the Israeli Supreme Court fraudulently elevated itself into a government branch, kept the old system of judicial selection to avoid the voters, and grew tentacles into every government decision -- how come the Knesset and the Israeli people are merely objecting to the credit cards and mortgage rates? They stole the government from the people and all you can think to fight is reasonableness? All you can think about is judicial selection committees? Basic laws?

REVIEW OF THE THEFT: See part I where we forensically analyze this theft. There we explain that First Israel, as some call it, was faced with a problem. After the 1977 upheaval, they knew that demographically, they could not regain control of the country that they believe they built. So the same way FDR planned to "pack the court", they "packed the Israeli government". Using a fabricated 1992 clandestine revolution, they added more branches to the government.

Two years later, they fabricated their own Marbury vs. Madison to enact Judicial Review. In 2001 legislation, they codified these made-up branches using the made-up term Basic Law, so that the unelected Court could defend itself from future Knessets.

And to avoid being voted out or replaced, they kept the old system of judicial selection. A system designed for a fact-finding UK court and not the elected system used for a government branch. And of course, that too protected from future knessets by the made-up term basic law.

So its sneaky, its sleazy, its complicated, its legalese, and its all by design to lull the people, you, and prevent you from even realizing what they just did, let alone objecting to it.

JUDICIAL ADVOCACY: And since that worked, the next step was judicial advocacy. In other words, not just judicial review, where the court may veto legislation, but advocacy, meaning legislating from the bench.

And with so much confidence, they followed that with the crown jewels: unelected legal advisors and an unprecedented reasonableness clause. So limitless jurisdiction and limitless grounds for rulings. Let's explain.

"LEGAL TRUTH" So we'll start with a story. Many years ago in the US, I was a bright-eyed first-year law student. And I was eager to learn truth, and how to find truth. So as law students do, we read hundreds upon hundreds of pages of legal decisions. We read the majority opinions and dissenting opinions. In simple terms, the winners and the losers and the other opinions. Fine.

And it hit me, something that now seems obvious. But I realized I'd never find what I was looking for. I found that judges, most of them very smart and very convincing, had their opinions. And of course their decisions were based on their opinions. And how they got there, how they justified it, was just filler. Filler often with sound logic and legal backing, but still filler.

For example, is the death penalty legal according to the US Constitution? Well, both sides, the majority and the dissent, the winner and loser, will give a long logical line of how to legally get to their answer. But in the end, after wonderful words and convincing logic in all directions, the end is opinion. The opinion is then supported by plucking language, case law, or whatever else they can find. Smart people will come up with smart arguments. But not necessarily truth.

SHAMELESS LANGUAGE: With this in mind, we can return to our Israeli Supreme Court. Here, we'll find thousands of pages of shameless fluff to support their ultimate goals, obscure paths of logic that lead to a constitutional revolution, to judicial review, to reasonableness.

Fluff words. Words and terms so broad and so undefined that they can mean anything or nothing. Such as:

-Democratic Ideals -Democratic Identity -Democratic Character

-The "essence" of Constitutionality -Implied Constitution -Implied Human Rights

-Pre-State promises -High Court of Justice (itself a smoke and mirror show)

And our favorites: -Basic Laws -Separation of Powers -Checks and Balances

-and Reasonableness

LEGAL CANONS: For context, there are basic canons, or rules, of judicial authorities. That is a hierarchy of importance. And if you read a US court case, they will rely on the constitution, congress, state laws and other court cases. And very low on the list is academic or legal journals or international bodies.

But look at Israeli case law, its filled mainly with these low-level citations and authorities. Obscure, undefined, easily manipulated words. And that's why you get the "ideals", the "characters", these "essence" arguments, that are completely irrefutable because you can't even define them. They mean everything for everyone.

CHECKS AND BALANCES: And understanding this, we see how the Supreme Court can explain away anything. Using an "essence" or something "implied", the court can create a new government branch yet overlook that branches must be elected. It can check and balance any government action. Its exactly what we call a runaway court.

As an example of how narrow and limited real Checks and Balances are, in the US, a tiny inter-branch veto authority was debated for decades, decades. It was called the line-item veto. It was the power of the President to veto only certain parts of legislation, as opposed to just sending the whole thing back. Meaning, these tools, Checks and Balances, are very well defined and very limited.

JUDICIAL ADVOCACY: But here in Israel, a veto is child's play. Here, the Courts completely dictate terms, deadlines, quantities, timeframes, they pick and chooses laws. This is called legislation. "Legislation from the bench", as they say.

And worse, on a daily basis, the judges demand action, they demand policy, they demand justification. So this goes even beyond legislation, this is executive orders. Meaning, they're not just reinterpreting or even redefining existing law, but creating laws without the legislature at all.

In the US system, an "aggressive" court (say the 9th circuit) may rule that X legislation is not allowed because it violates Y laws or rights. So Mr. legislator, go try again. But in Israel, by invoking a random "essence" of human rights, the court decides standards for criminals, for terrorists, for asylum seekers.

So we are way past the idea of checking another branch, it is full incursion into legislation and executive orders.

REASONABLENESS: And it gets worse as we get to reasonableness standards. Any law student can explain to you that the idea of "reasonableness" is a legal tool to be used sparingly, to fill gaps in the law. Why? Because at it's core it comes down to opinion.

(FAIR MARKET VALUE) How so? As a trier-of-fact, the court has to sometimes decide values. How much is this widget? this item? How much was it yesterday? How much was it worth if left in the rain. So they calculate and decide a financial answer, Fair Market Values, damages, depreciation. And to do so, they have to reconstruct all kinds of quantities using experts and markets. But there's tremendous leeway, and that's just for a financial value.

(REASONABLE MAN) Now, when adjudicating, or deciding on someone's actions - did someone do the right or wrong thing, the classic example is the average man on a bus. What should he have done or not done? What standard of care does he own to his fellow citizens.

As you see, we've entered well into the slippery slope of opinion; which man? which day? which circumstances? does he know the laws? is he afraid to get sued? maybe he has a headache that day? The point is, if you thought Fair Market Value was open for interpretation, the Reasonable Man standard goes well into the realm of subjective presumptions, in other words, opinions.

(REASONABLE OFFICIAL) And now, now that brings us to probably the greatest of Israel's many judicial mockeries on the world judicial stage, the reasonableness of a minister or elected official!

Not did the official violate the law or violate one of these already absurd "essence" "spirit" or "implied" principles of democracy. That's already too restraining for the court. But would a reasonable elected official do xyz? And they're not talking about the laws themselves or the government, that's also too restraining. But any official. They decide what is reasonable for any official. So complete court oversight on every decision and based on reasonableness, which we've explained is pure opinion.

And how do we even decide the reasonableness of a minister? Do we calculate election promises? Do we calculate mandates? Coalitions? Closed-door party negotiations and agreements? If its reasonable for a coalition with 61 mandates, what about if it has 68 mandates? International agreements? Pressures? Personality conflicts? Which US president is in office? There's no end to the calculation, which means no limits on what the court can decide. Again, pure opinion.

(2024 LEGISLATION) So the Court has jurisdiction on ANY official for ANY decision and can decide on ANY factors - unprecedented worldwide. And not surprisingly, in 2024, the Knesset passed a basic law amendment trying to limit exactly this judicial creation. In response, the Court dusted off the term "Democratic Identity" to strike down the Knesset's law. Go define that! Democratic Identity. So its meaningless fluffy words versus meaningless fluffy words, meaning no limitations.

And that, of course, is why at it's most basic level, Reasonableness is frowned upon by courts, or at least frowned upon by courts that abide by their prescribed role. So if the court's sees its role as a finder of fact, it uses these tools accordingly.

Or in the case of Israel, where the Court views itself as the defender of a dying demographic, the defender of an ideology, and a defender of a way of life, it uses these legal tools as weapons - weapons to acquire, maintain, and tighten control of the country.

ATTORNEY GENERAL: And with that self-defined defender role, we come to the next tools: the Attorney General and Legal Advisors.

Now, Israelis don't know this because they have been indoctrinated to see elected officials, the people you voted into office, as "bad" as "biased" as "political". We go over this in detail in Part 1.

But in the US, attorneys general are elected officials. Yes, people vote for them. I've voted for them. There, the attorney general serves as the prosecutor. And the prosecutor is elected because what and when and how to enforce the law is already a policy that should align with the will of the people.

And in instances where the attorney general is not elected, the attorney general is appointed by elected officials - and for the same reason, to align with the people. At the national level, for example, the incoming president chooses a new attorney general. Why? Because the president has a mandate of the people. That is what the people want. Democracy. The elected people.

But in Israel, here we go again, the attorney general, who sits under the executive branch, is selected by a majority of unelected judicial officials. A five-member group, three of whom are a former supreme court judge, a member of the bar association, and an academic. So if you missed it, the attorney general, and the legal advisors under him, sit in various offices of the executive branch, but are NOT chosen by the executive branch and are NOT chosen by elected officials.

In simple terms, plants, sabotage. Court-appointed positions that check and balance the government from within the government.

REAL-TIME INJUNCTION AUTHORITY: Unelected Legal Advisors, an unelected Attorney General, in positions that can instantly veto elected-official policy. So not just "checking" the government, but hindering it from within, and doing so in real time, with speed even faster than a court injunction.

And injunctions, meaning a veto, an ability to halt government action, based on what legal basis? Sometimes none; often an injunction based on the need for mere further review. Its an embedded system of injunctions, injunctions that slow government action on a daily basis and hinder the will of the people. So they have access to and can stop anything, anywhere in the government.

ACCEPTED THEFT: And now for the bottom line. Does this even matter? These forensics, these facts, this history and analysis -- what we've demonstrated to be a fraud, to be a theft. Well, all of this speaks to the mind.

But in the end, Israeli Yonatan or, as he calls himself, Johnny, who is at the beach on Saturday, he is surfing with his heart. And deep in his heart, he's worried because they keep warning him about some looming Halachic state. So we can explain to him all these details, and he may full-well agree. But in the end, and its the reason why we got here, he is complicit. Maybe not every detail, but he knows all this. He understands all this. And in fact, he's in on it.