The Judicial Crisis: What Israel’s Weaponized Judiciary Says About the Supreme Court of the United States
Statue of Lady Justice. Photo by William Cho.
In most democratic states, such as in the United States and Israel, the federal judiciary represents an important branch of the governing body that inherently, at least in definition, serves as an unbiased force meant to check the politicized power of the executive and legislative branches for the sake of law and reason. The United States’s judicial system, for example, is composed of a powerful multilevel structure which addresses all manners of important civil cases from an apolitical perspective. The Supreme Court of the United States, the top dog on the judicial food chain, however, has become increasingly a battleground for politics, whether it be the partisan blocking and appointment of justices, the revisiting of politically intense cases such as Roe v. Wade, or the increase of rulings that overturn historical precedent. This is hardly a situation unique to the United States, however. In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition government has taken a political lunge at the judiciary beyond what we have seen in the United States, proposing to give Israel’s executive and legislative branches significantly increased control over the state’s Supreme Court, its members, and its rulings. In doing so, Netanyahu directly assaults the very premise of a true democracy for the sake of individualistic power, a terrifying step towards authoritarianism that sheds new light on the urgency of the United States’ increasingly polarized judiciary.
Netanyahu’s plan for judicial overhaul in Israel would give his administration, a right-wing coalition government, significantly increased control over judicial processes in the nation. Under the plan, Netanyahu would have more input in the Judicial Selection Committee, a non-partisan group tasked with nominating figures to the bench, power to overrule Court decisions by a simple majority, and strengthen his executive actions by preventing vetoes.
These proposed changes fundamentally alter the judicial branch of the Israeli government and allow Netanyahu’s religious-nationalist coalition to overcome the largest hurdle to extremist legislation in the country. The coalition government—composed of far-right nationalists, ultra-conservative religious parties, and other volatile groups—is in many ways attempting to circumvent rational vetoes of their extreme agendas. Today, much of the administration’s agenda would be struck down by the Supreme Court, but if the Court’s power decreases and the administration’s agenda is passed, the rights of many people in today’s Israel would be voraciously limited. Legislation meant to, say, expand Jewish settlements in the West Bank of Palestine or cement Orthodox Jewish religious practices into Israeli law can only be blocked by the Israeli Supreme Court.
When announced, Netanyahu’s judiciary reformation was met with extraordinary outcry both within Israel and abroad. Not only were critics appalled by the scale of Netanyahu’s plan, but many identified the action as a true attack on Israeli democracy and a step towards authoritarianism in the State. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis took to the streets in protest, demanding that Netanyahu repeal the plan and operate within the standard bounds of democratic rule. Eventually, after weeks of protest have shaken the country, Netanyahu has decided to delay the reform, which is a sincere, yet temporary, victory for Israeli protesters and critics.
Netanyahu’s judicial reform plan presents an important modern example of legislative and executive figures using the judicial system as a partisan battleground: an issue that is not reserved to Israel. In the United States, the Supreme Court has become increasingly polarized, with judicial appointments and court rulings increasingly influenced by partisan implications. Confirmation votes in the Senate have become vicious partisan brawls instead of referendums on a nominee’s apolitical qualifications. The most recent Supreme Court term, where all three of former-President Donald J. Trump’s appointees—Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett—helped to create a conservative supermajority, delivered a slew of incredibly right-wing rulings, such as overturning a nation-wide right to abortion, expanding gun rights, and limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions. Justices voted overwhelmingly along the ideology of the President that appointed them, and they often stuck together under partisan umbrellas in that regard. In its execution, this means that the original purpose of the judiciary, to be a check on politics, is thwarted and the very intention of the system is lost.
The increasing partisanship of the Supreme Court of the United States presents the same issues as Netanyahu’s judicial reform proposal in Israel: a biased judiciary means a less stable democracy. The Court was, at its conception, intended to be a blockade to overwhelmingly partisan politics that, when allowed to run free and without restraint, can lead to the collapse of a democratic system entirely. As an apolitical institution, the courts system prevents authoritarianism by protecting the rights of marginalized and minority groups amid partisan legislative efforts to the contrary. Without the judiciary’s voice in government, the system falls apart, and partisan figures are able to overextend their influence politically. In order to strengthen democracies around the world, large, structural reforms are necessary to reinforce the non-partisan identity of the judiciary. Netanyahu’s judicial plan is a radical proposal, but one from which we can see more clearly the crisis of the impartial court in Israel and around the world. The case highlights the desperate need for additional bulwarks to strengthen democracy for everyone.
Jackson Weinberger, CC’24, is from Nevada and studies Political Science and Art History. He has experience on several political campaigns in New York State.