Rein in the court

I find it hard to understand the near hysteria against the proposal to curtail the powers of the Supreme Court back to how it was before the Aharon Barak inflation period. Unlike similar courts in other democracies, appeals can now bypass lower courts and go straight to the Supreme Court. Even people with no standing can appeal on issues that do not affect them, resulting in little Israel having 15 justices instead of just 9 in America and 12 in the UK. But it is the “override law,” which allows the court to overrule the elected government and Knesset, that is most reprehensible.

I don’t agree with Stephen Shaw (“Letters,” June 20) that the judges being “unelected is their strength.” Does he assume that the judges are angels sent down from Heaven and programmed to do the absolute right thing? Although we hope they are honorable people who will do their very best to be impartial, lawyers are still the product of their upbringing, education, social class and pressures, religion and personal prejudices. The justices may not be “elected,” but they are nominated by a panel consisting of the same politicians that he does not trust and a selection of lawyers who have their own professional agenda, even if not political. We only have to recall the months of horse trading on the make-up of the panel itself to understand just how political the whole set-up is.

I prefer that lawmaking should stay the exclusive preserve of the elected government and Knesset, rather than a small coterie of lawyers nominated by another small group of people. ALAN HALIBARD Beit Shemesh