The court that cried wolf

By
September 23, 2013 14:26

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




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