Kudos to Koppel and Kontorovich for their brief but clear explanation of why judicial reforms are so needed in Israel. One aspect which they allude to but do not explain and develop sufficiently is that Barak's basis for his self-declared juristocracy is a verbal sleight of tongue in which he deftly but deceptively redefines "democracy".…
Kudos to Koppel and Kontorovich for their brief but clear explanation of why judicial reforms are so needed in Israel. One aspect which they allude to but do not explain and develop sufficiently is that Barak's basis for his self-declared juristocracy is a verbal sleight of tongue in which he deftly but deceptively redefines "democracy". The Jeffersonian democracy of government by the consent of the governed or Lincoln's formulation of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" -- concepts deeply familiar to Americans -- are dismissively disparaged by Barak as "formal democracy".
In its stead he posits "substantive democracy" by which he means rule by the judicial system, as headed by the Supreme Court, unfettered by the presence or absence or plain meaning of laws passed by the legislature or policies favored by an elected government. Rather the views and values of the "enlightened" and "progressive", i.e., the elite slivers of society are to guide the promulgations and pronouncements of the court. And who better than to posit what the are these views and values than the justices of the court who, under the Israeli system, effectively propagate themselves by blocking the appointment of any contrary judicial philosophies.
Some additional reading to understand Barak's distortion of democracy:
Shortly after he reached the mandatory retirement age (70) Barak published a book, "The Judge in a Democracy" in which he explained his anti-democratic judicial philosophy. Two reviews:
Richard Posner, a distinguished US jurist, judge and law school professor, reviewed the book and the title of the review says it all: "The Enlightened Despot"
In addition, two articles by one of Barak's long time critics, Jonathan (Yonasan) Rosenblum, and whose own legal knowledge would really irritate Barak especially since Rosenblum is ultra-orthodox (Rosenblum is a graduate of University of Chicago and Yale Law school, long before the latter wokified into ridiculousness).
There is a crucial difference between rebalancing the proper role of the judiciary versus complete evisceration, in a system with no other checks/balances on an intertwined executive/legislature with no formal constitution or direct representation. If you are interested in further discussion of this topic I recommend the Times of Israel's podcast What Matters Now, the first episode with Micha Goodman, in which he expands on this issue.
And just fyi, I'm sure you're not aware of this, but Mishpacha magazine is ultra-orthodox to the extent that women's faces are blurred or not shown. I personally read and enjoy it but would take any political/religious articles with a grain of salt, as their position on certain issues is quite extreme. In another comment I explain the ulterior motives of the charedi communities in Israel vis-a-vis their support for the proposed reforms, and I expect Mishpacha will toe the party line.
Kudos to Koppel and Kontorovich for their brief but clear explanation of why judicial reforms are so needed in Israel. One aspect which they allude to but do not explain and develop sufficiently is that Barak's basis for his self-declared juristocracy is a verbal sleight of tongue in which he deftly but deceptively redefines "democracy". The Jeffersonian democracy of government by the consent of the governed or Lincoln's formulation of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" -- concepts deeply familiar to Americans -- are dismissively disparaged by Barak as "formal democracy".
In its stead he posits "substantive democracy" by which he means rule by the judicial system, as headed by the Supreme Court, unfettered by the presence or absence or plain meaning of laws passed by the legislature or policies favored by an elected government. Rather the views and values of the "enlightened" and "progressive", i.e., the elite slivers of society are to guide the promulgations and pronouncements of the court. And who better than to posit what the are these views and values than the justices of the court who, under the Israeli system, effectively propagate themselves by blocking the appointment of any contrary judicial philosophies.
Some additional reading to understand Barak's distortion of democracy:
Shortly after he reached the mandatory retirement age (70) Barak published a book, "The Judge in a Democracy" in which he explained his anti-democratic judicial philosophy. Two reviews:
Richard Posner, a distinguished US jurist, judge and law school professor, reviewed the book and the title of the review says it all: "The Enlightened Despot"
https://newrepublic.com/article/60919/enlightened-despot
And if his name does not cause you paroxysms, the late Robert Bork also reviewed the book: https://azure.org.il/download/magazine/1119AZ_27_bork_review.pdf
Posner's review cites Bork's several times.
In addition, two articles by one of Barak's long time critics, Jonathan (Yonasan) Rosenblum, and whose own legal knowledge would really irritate Barak especially since Rosenblum is ultra-orthodox (Rosenblum is a graduate of University of Chicago and Yale Law school, long before the latter wokified into ridiculousness).
https://mishpacha.com/he-who-grabs-too-much-may-lose-everything/
https://mishpacha.com/a-question-of-modesty/
There is a crucial difference between rebalancing the proper role of the judiciary versus complete evisceration, in a system with no other checks/balances on an intertwined executive/legislature with no formal constitution or direct representation. If you are interested in further discussion of this topic I recommend the Times of Israel's podcast What Matters Now, the first episode with Micha Goodman, in which he expands on this issue.
And just fyi, I'm sure you're not aware of this, but Mishpacha magazine is ultra-orthodox to the extent that women's faces are blurred or not shown. I personally read and enjoy it but would take any political/religious articles with a grain of salt, as their position on certain issues is quite extreme. In another comment I explain the ulterior motives of the charedi communities in Israel vis-a-vis their support for the proposed reforms, and I expect Mishpacha will toe the party line.
You may know Mishpacha but you don't seem to know Jonathan Rosenblum and his intellectual integrity.