Today (Tuesday) the High Court once again rejected the government's request to postpone the date of the hearing on the petitions against the law to cancel the cause of reasonableness and decided that the hearing will take place as planned next Tuesday. This is the second time that the government's petition requests to postpone the hearing on the first law of The legal reform.
As you may recall, last Sunday Attorney Ilan Bombach, who represents the government in the petition, submitted a request to the High Court to postpone the dramatic hearing, after the legal advisor to the government, Gali Baharav Miara, presented her position on the law and clarified that in her opinion the High Court should disqualify him.
In the application submitted by the government to the High Court, it is claimed that the hearing should be postponed due to the position of the ombudsman which does not reflect the position of the government. According to them: "The position of the Legal Adviser to the Government is actually strengthening and supporting the positions of the petitioners."
"An earthquake in Israeli law"
Attorney Bombach, who represents the government, continued his attack on Miara's position and claimed that following the extremist position of the Attorney general, the High Court of Justice should give a longer time to respond: "The Attorney general is taking the most extreme position there is when she supports the extremest step existing in Israeli law - a declaration of nullity of fundamental legislation".
Furthermore, they added, "This is an earthquake in the Israeli legal system, and there is no justification for treating the matter so extremely and pushing it away, as it should have been addressed within a few days, as should the hearing itself."
The implication directed towards the Supreme Court: "Even the government deserves justice."
Government representatives also insinuated and subtly criticized the judges by noting that the hearing date was intentionally set before Justice Esther Hayut's retirement so that she could participate in the dramatic hearing and even preside over the panel. They wrote, "With great caution, it should be said that even the consideration that both the President (Esther Hayut) and Justice Baron are due to retire next month cannot stand in the way of the duty to provide the government respondents with a fair and comprehensive justice hearing, not under the constraint of a limited timeframe that lacks true flexibility and does not align with the pace of debate in similar petitions that resulted in an amendment to the Basic Law or the Basic Law itself."
