After submitting an appeal against the law to reduce the Clause of Reasonability and with the joining of numerous protest organizations to the appeal, today (Sunday), the 'If You Will' movement appealed to the Supreme Court requesting to join the discussion as a 'friend of the court'. This request marks the first time that a civil society organization from the nationalist camp has sought to join the discussion.
The main purpose of the institution 'Friend of the Court' is to assist the court in a certain matter by someone who is not a direct party to the ongoing dispute. Israeli jurisprudence recognizes the authority of the court to include an individual or entity as a 'Friend of the Court'. According to the claim of the 'If You Will' movement, filed by attorneys Eran Ben-Ari, Assaf Techelet, and Eitan Marans, the court has no jurisdiction to deliberate on the constitutionality of basic laws, therefore the appeal should be rejected.
The main arguments accompanying the request for participation are detailed and encompass numerous references to legislation, rulings, and studies from both within the country and internationally. The elaboration includes addressing all attempts by the petitioners to identify an authoritative source (which doesn't exist) that would grant the court the power to invalidate, for the first time in the history of the state, basic laws.
According to the movement's stance, accepting the petition will strip the democratic foundation from the definition of the state and will shift the center of decision-making authority in Israeli society from the public and its elected representatives to an unelected court, thereby limiting the people's ability to shape their own lives.
From the law firm representing the "If You Will" movement, it was conveyed: "These are fateful petitions that will decide whether in the State of Israel the people are sovereign, as in all democratic states, or not. After the court allowed many left-wing organizations to argue that it is authorized, for the first time in the country's history, to annul a fundamental law, a vital law, it is crucial that the voice of the national civil society be heard. Our detailed and well-articulated position is unequivocal: the court has no source of authority to adjudicate the petitions, and it should reject them immediately."