The High Court's blatant intervention in politically controversial matters, and repeated annulment of Knesset decisions, are provoking growing criticism of the Supreme Court, and encouraging initiatives to limit its powers.
There was an outcry that this was supposedly an attempt to undermine the rule of law.
The High Court's recent decision on the Sabbath issue proves how justified the criticism against it is. It was not a unanimous decision. There was a majority opinion and a minority opinion.
Seven judges sat in the hearing, five non-Shabbat observant and two Sabbath observant. If the decision were professional, the division of opinions would have to be detached from the personal lifestyles of the judges.
But look at this wonder – the five non-Shabbat-observant judges ruled against the Sabbath, while the two Sabbath-observant judges held the minority opinion in favor of the Sabbath.
What does this prove? That there are no professional legal decisions here, but rather an interpretation of the law that stems from a worldview.
And if so, all the talk about the 'rule of law' is a joke, because it's not about the 'law', but about the worldview of certain judges, who currently hold an absolute majority position in the Supreme Court.
A struggle for the entire public
In a democracy, the arena where worldviews are fought over is parliament, not the courts. Parliament represents all parts of the people and the values they desire. This is the very reason to go vote, so that your voice can be heard and the things that are important to you can be promoted.
The soul of the democratic system is the ability given to the minority to lead moves. That is why citizens also vote for small parties, because they know that in the democratic game of political give-and-take they will be able to promote the concepts dear to their hearts. But if the High Court blatantly interferes in the decisions of the Knesset, it is essentially neutering the power of elected officials and does not allow the people to influence according to their will.
Indeed, the religious public is a minority in the country, and it knows that it does not have the power to impose its views on the entire life of the country, but it is fighting for certain fundamental values. To the same extent, the 'Greens' know that they are a minority, and yet they are trying to get elected to the Knesset to promote environmental values, despite the majority's position. This is how life goes on in a democratic regime.
The 'Greens' believe with all their hearts that they are fighting for the entire public, which is unaware of the devastation that may occur from the destruction of nature and the environment.
To the same extent, the religious public believes that it is fighting for the Jewish identity of the entire country, and for the benefit of all its citizens, who do not always understand the significance of the destruction of the Sabbath on their own lives.
Why not government offices?
Isn't this a chain reaction? Opening businesses on Shabbat puts pressure on other business owners to open their businesses as well. This leads to pressure to operate public transportation on Shabbat. And why post offices and government offices won't be open on Shabbat, on the same grounds – it's a free day when people have time to make personal arrangements.
But at this rate, Shabbat will no longer be a day off, but a regular workday...
In any case, the Knesset is the place to conduct this discussion, and it is the arena that allows supporters of the Sabbath to promote their faith and perception. The High Court of Justice must not take away this right from them.
Join the Haredim 10 Facebook page >>
Join the X page of Haredim 10 >>
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
