The court that cried wolf

Had the High Court not ruined its own credibility, migrant ruling might get the respect it merits.

By
September 23, 2013 14:26
African migrants transport vegetables in south Tel Aviv

African migrants transport vegetables in south Tel Aviv 370. (photo credit: REUTERS)

After the High Court of Justice overturned a law last week that allowed illegal migrants to be held in detention for up to three years, The Jerusalem Post’s editorial aptly summarized Israelis’ reactions as follows: “For the Left, the ruling was a vindication of their adherence to the universality of human rights,” while “For the Right ... the decision was yet another indication that the High Court was dominated by a weak-wrist liberal consensus.”

It’s a sad commentary on the depths to which the court has sunk itself that neither side seriously considered what ought to be the default explanation of a High Court verdict: that it was rooted in relevant legislation duly enacted by the Knesset. Instead, they simply assumed the court was expressing a value judgment, and thereby taking sides in the heated debate over what Israel’s policy toward illegal migrants should be.

Read More...

Related Content