15 Comments

On the selection committee:

"3 supreme Court justices" of unknown political persuasion.

"2 people from the bar" - sounds like there's no shortage of lawyers in Israel So who's selects these two people from the bar? How do we know what their political persuasion is?

The guest describes these people as if there's supposed to be revered academics. I can tell you after the last few years in the United States, I'm more skeptical than ever about these people and Israelis should probably be as well.

Expand full comment

Disappointed that you did not do a better job on finding an academic who is more balanced in how he/she views the proposed legislation. You claim to have presented a juridical expert to guide the listener in understanding the proposed legislation, provision by provision; to help him/her reach an informed judgement as to the advisability or inadvisability of each element of the proposal.

You did not deliver on this: Instead you presented a known advocate against the legislation.

For this, one already has the mainstream English (and Hebrew) media.

Expand full comment

Can you be more specific to your points? I feel like I have the same concerns that you state, but do you have more information to back them up? As an example, the guest was saying how this panel will be remade, but they didn't speak about the political persuasion of the current panelists, which my understanding is they tend to be left wing which is the reason behind this whole judicial review. I don't know enough about who's on the panel or how they select judges but I feel like this is the true reason as to why the selection panel is being redone.

Expand full comment

I feel like something that's probably being left out is that basically left leaning parties have control over the judiciary? Is this true? Is it not true?

If it's true, why is there a surprise that right wing politicians want to change this? Also, if it's true, people should probably be asking themselves how it got to this point if it's supposedly supposed to be a non-politicized process

Expand full comment

Why be nasty? Does it make you feel better? This is not what the comment was intended for? But be it as it may, just let’s drop this. Please.

Expand full comment

Impossible to judge the validity of these arguments, especially if there is no counterargument and most of the listeners are layman. It's extremely easy for someone who is a specialist to cherry pick the data so that its thesis sounds reasonable or even unavoidable. And we all know that there are incredibly intelligent people out there who either support this reform (at least parts of it), or doesn't support it but still see deep issues with the current system. This scholar clearly believes the status quo is great and there's nothing worth changing at all. I mean, how is this any different from what you would read in Haaretz?

Expand full comment

Can you be more specific to your points? I feel like I have the same concerns that you state, but do you have more information to back them up? As an example, the guest was saying how this panel will be remade, but they didn't speak about the political persuasion of the current panelists, which my understanding is they tend to be left wing which is the reason behind this whole judicial review. I don't know enough about who's on the panel or how they select judges but I feel like this is the true reason as to why the selection panel is being redone.

Expand full comment

Well, the problem is precisely what I don't know. For example, I don't know if all the "comparative law" arguments hold water; I don't know if the 22 laws that the Supreme Court reviewed in fact justified the ruling; I don't know if the consequences of the judicial reform are that potentially dire; etc. etc. The only way for me to (partially) evaluate that would be the to hear the counterarguments (which I imagine exist) -- and, I have to admit, I would still have a very imperfect knowledge of the subject. I guess even your point about the current make-up of the court (which, as far as I know, is decidedly progressive when it comes to judicial philosophy) is unclear to me. That's why I believe it would be useful to have an open debate on the subject, not only about the reform itself, but on the problems of the current system (which may require a different reform -- if they exist at all!).

Expand full comment

Thank for providing the video in text. I skimmed it quickly and got the idea of what the concerns are. Stan

Expand full comment

More importantly, we pay money for indulgence. It looks to me that Mr. Gordis views his commentary more as a political. Imperative. You don’t charge money for imperatives.

Expand full comment

Must I tell you that $84 a year is not available for every one nor a priority.

It’s pretty … patronizing to say the least.

But in a time of $$$$$ anything goes

Please rethink your comment.

Expand full comment

I was just curious to know your circumstance as I would have been more than happy to gift you a subscription, but it seems you're more intent on being snarky.

Expand full comment

The ‘paid for upgrade’ cuts out a large number of listeners.

I know you want to have an impact.

How will it happen if only people who can afford it are your listeners?!

Expand full comment

Serious question: You can't afford $7/month?

Expand full comment

Your articles are always illuminating. I hope you’ll post the rest of this conversation soon!

Expand full comment
Error