The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard a petition challenging a Likud party court decision that overturned a vote allowing serving MKs, ministers, and deputy ministers to compete for regional slots on the party's Knesset slate.
Justices Daphne Barak Erez, Ofer Grosskopf, and Alex Stein rejected the appeal filed by MK Afif Abed after he withdrew the petition following indications from the panel that it intended to reject it.
During the hearing, the justices criticized the decision to bring the internal party dispute before the High Court of Justice.
"Why is the Supreme Court needed?" Barak Erez asked at the start of the hearing. "We moved the hearing forward beyond what was required because we understood there was a dispute. We will not complain if you resolve it among yourselves. I ask that you try to reach agreements."
Supreme Court Justices see 'no grounds for intervention'
Grosskopf backed Barak Erez's position, saying there were no grounds for judicial intervention in the party court's decision.
"The District Court decided not to intervene in the Likud court's decision, why should we intervene where the District Court found no problem?" he said.
He added, "The Likud movement's court is the body that is supposed to make decisions on these matters, and we must respect it. It reached a conclusion and explained its reasoning, and there is no reason for us to intervene. That is what a court is for."
Attorney Guy Bussi, who represented Abed, argued that the District Court had found that the Likud court exceeded its authority.
Barak Erez disputes Bussi's interpretation of District Court ruling
Barak Erez rejected that interpretation.
"That is not what the District Court said. It said that of the three grounds, there was a flaw in only one of them. I do not need the District Court, I am reading the party court's ruling, the three judges, and it appears that the party court's ruling stands. There is a certain legal situation that says MKs do not compete in the districts, there is a decision to change that, and it was determined that the decision was flawed."
Grosskopf summarized the panel's position by stressing the high threshold required for judicial intervention in an internal party ruling.
"We need a special reason to intervene in the court's decision, when it said that flaws had occurred and overturned the decision, and the District Court accepted that. I am reading the Likud court's ruling, it says there is a problem with the Likud constitution and there are also procedural flaws. So the District Court did not accept one line of reasoning, and the second one still remains."