I am so glad you changed your view on the need to "Tweak or reform the judiciary of Israel." Your proposals are typically Dershowitziam, meaning it is well reasoned, practical and fair. Mazel tov again to a well written proposal. I am sure Bibi and the Knesset will review your suggestions. Thank you.
Hyat, as head of the Supreme Court, does not make a good case for the Court's considered and apolitical judicial stance when she makes statements claiming the proposed changes are a ‘fatal blow to Israeli democracy’. A little bit of introspection of the Court and its history would have been far more appropriate.
"The line between these two types of cases is not always clear; there will inevitably be some overlap. But it will be clear enough to preserve the power of the court to protect the most basic rights." Depending on who is doing the interpreting. Does this not bring us back to square one?
I am so glad you changed your view on the need to "Tweak or reform the judiciary of Israel." Your proposals are typically Dershowitziam, meaning it is well reasoned, practical and fair. Mazel tov again to a well written proposal. I am sure Bibi and the Knesset will review your suggestions. Thank you.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-fiery-speech-hayut-says-judicial-shakeup-plan-fatal-blow-to-israeli-democracy/
Hyat, as head of the Supreme Court, does not make a good case for the Court's considered and apolitical judicial stance when she makes statements claiming the proposed changes are a ‘fatal blow to Israeli democracy’. A little bit of introspection of the Court and its history would have been far more appropriate.
Prof Dershowitz continues his well reasoned reasonableness, and humanity, to suggest a solution to a contentious problem of considerable consequences.
Kudos to this great man.
"The line between these two types of cases is not always clear; there will inevitably be some overlap. But it will be clear enough to preserve the power of the court to protect the most basic rights." Depending on who is doing the interpreting. Does this not bring us back to square one?