[paulusthe]

No, this is a terrible metaphor, because the 14th amendment in this example doesn't exist.

Imagine a US without a constitution, but instead it just has a big body of case law and precedent to go on. The judiciary's role is to adjudicate when that case law contradicts itself, and to decide if a given new law contradicts the rest of the case law.

The Knesset is limiting the judiciary's ability to review such things, which to an American is now analogous to Marbury v Madison being decided unconstitutional.

Amazing how, even here, the arguments made about this issue are disingenuous to outright misleading.

[maratc]

Israel has a body of Basic Laws, and Barak has declared that body to represent a Constitution.

The Supreme Court is doing a good job determining where a law contradicts a Basic Law, and invalidating that law because of a contradiction. E.g. Surrogacy law was returned to the legislative — not since it was "unreasonable", but because it was unequal. (The legislative fixed the law to include homosexuals, and the law passed.)

The "unreasonableness" clause is not the only tool SC has at their disposal. From now on, they can use the other tools — just not "we find this unreasonable".

> are disingenuous to outright misleading

HN Guidelines: "Assume good faith."

[fortzi]

> just not "we find this unreasonable"

That's an over simplistic representation, which you may have done in good faith. The coalition MPs are making it very hard to assume that they spread this narrative in good faith.

The notion of Reasonability or Reasonableness is a well established legal principal [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonability