SURPRISE!

 WHAT A SURPRISE! Supreme Court Rejects Petition Against Hayut’s Conflict Of Interest

Israel’s Supreme Court on Sunday rejected the Lavi Association’s petition to disqualify Supreme Court President Esther Hayut from participating in the panel that will deliberate the Reasonabless Law due to her obvious conflict of interest after she publicly slammed the law in a speech in January.

The decision states that the reason for rejecting the petition is that the Lavi organization is not a party to the deliberation.

In response, the Lavi Association stated: “The Supreme Court President’s motive to head the panel that will deliberate the petitions against the Reasonableness Law is bright and clear. The rejection of the petition on technical grounds does not add to the respect of the Supreme Court.”

The petition filed by the association against Hayut stated, among other things, that “any other judge who would have expressed firm and public positions on this or that issue would have been disqualified from sitting in the court on the same issue. It is unfathomable to accept double standards and such obvious conflicts of interest just because the person in question is the president of the Supreme Court.”

https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/featured/2215528/what-a-surprise-supreme-court-rejects-petition-against-hayuts-conflict-of-interest.html

_________________________________

Comments to this article:

@There’s never been a concept of “not a party” in the recent history of the supreme court. ANYONE CAN SUE! That’s one of the biggest problems.

@It’s true that the Lavi Association has no standing, and in a US court, or anywhere else in the civilized world, that would get their case rejected. But the WHOLE POINT of this reform is that the Israeli courts threw the whole concept of standing into the garbage. In Israel they let anyone sue the government, regardless of standing; until now! Or is it only the executive and legislative branches that anyone can sue, but not the judicial branch?! How exactly can they justify that, except by saying the quiet part out loud: “Because we are the true government here”?

@Suddenly when it’s convenient for them, the supreme court (lower case intentional) is borrowing standards from the US Supreme Court, and now “standing” is a legal concept to be used.

@the use of “standing” is particularly ironic, since the israeli supreme court has done away with that requirement. but maybe only for causes they like.