Y,

Using the same absurd logic, with no limits to the subjective term "unreasonable" the high court can cancel any law such as taxation, education etc.

Given that the parliament is democratically elected and the high court is not, just as the high court limits the power of the parliament, the parliament needs to limit the power of the judiciary.

A constitution would be a good start, as would the parliament's ability to appoint high court judges outside of what is becoming a political clique.

Dear ShadowMinister,

In reality there are no unreasonable laws (unless they contain obvious logical contradictions, such as "everyone must wear all black and everyone must wear all white") - but there are laws which the legislator/government is too embarrassed to reason.

"Elections should be held every 50 years"
(because I want to be king for the rest of my life)
Perfectly Reasonable!

"Repeal the law that members of the central city-planning committee cannot be elected as mayors"
(because my friend is in that committee and wants to become a mayor)
Perfectly Reasonable!

"All Arabs may not eat chocolate"
(because I want to make their lives bitter so they leave the country)
Perfectly Reasonable!

So in court, government always gets an opportunity to defend the law in question by providing its honest reasoning, and if they can and are willing to do so (and that law does not contradict the constitution or some basic law), then no problem, that law will be upheld!

«as would the parliament's ability to appoint high court judges outside of what is becoming a political clique.»

Fine, no political cliques, then why parliament and not the citizens themselves, which the court is supposed to protect against regime excesses? Why leave the cat to guard the cream?

Since ordinary people are not experts in the proficiency and honesty of judges and cannot be available any moment a judge dies or retires, they should instead, at the time of elections, also vote directly for the committee that appoints judges.

What is reasonable and unreasonable is a matter of opinion. It cannot be defined objectively. My reasonable is somebody else's unreasonable and vice versa.

Dear David F.,

Reasonableness indeed cannot be defined objectively because behind each and every action is some subjective desire.

Even if one claims that it was reasonable to climb a tree when a tiger approached, one could still ask "why", because the desire not to be eaten by the tiger, to keep on living and to not suffer the pain of its jaws, is subjective.

Nevertheless, in the legal context, one should at least be able to defend their action (in this case, their legislation) by providing some reasons(s), even when these are ultimately subjective. They could say "this is what the voter wanted" and if true, then it should be sufficient and it should not be necessary to dig any further to find WHY the voter wanted that.

But what occurred in Israel till recently was that "unreasonable laws" were challenged in court, where the government/legislators were too embarrassed to provide their true reasons, knowing well that these reasons would not be approved by the voters, which they were support to serve and represent. Had they openly provided their true reasons in court (such as "I want to be king forever", "I want to fix my friend a job", "I want all Arabs to suffer and leave") then the court would dismiss the case as "not unreasonable", but of course they weren't willing to admit their true reasons, thus they effectively legislated that they will in future be able to legislate anything they like without having to provide the courts and the public with their true reasons.

Y,

I can counter any facile comment you make with a similar one from the Judges.

Dear ShadowMinister,

Israel's high-court judges, all 15 of them sitting together on this one case for the first time in Israel's history, will have their say on the 12th of September.