Supreme Court head Barak explains opposition to Gavison appointment
By Yuval Yoaz Haaretz 13 November 2005
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/644501.html

Supreme Court President Aharon Barak has publicly announced he is opposed to
appointing Prof. Ruth Gavison to the bench.

The matter has engaged the judicial system for months, with Justice Minister
Tzipi Livni openly pushing for Gavison's appointment, and Barak reportedly
opposed to it. Barak explained his objections at the Forum on Law and
Society, sponsored by Netanya College, held at Neve Ilan Friday.

Barak began by saying that Gavison is a good friend of his, so consenting to
her appointment would raise charges of cronyism. While acknowledging that
"she is completely worthy of being appointed a Supreme Court Justice," Barak
said the problem is Gavison's "agenda," as revealed in numerous statements
and publications. Gavison favors reducing the Supreme Court's interference
in decisions made by the other branches of government, particularly in the
area of legislative review - in other words, annuling laws that contradict
basic laws.

"I don't want candidates taking a position regarding the agenda," Barak
said. "But Ruthie forces me against my will to come out against her agenda,
and her agenda is not good for the Supreme Court."

In response, Livni said: "I was pleased to hear that Gavison is a worthy
jurist in Barak's view. Every jurist of stature has judicial positions on
crucial issues, in other words, an agenda. Thus do the justices serving
today, and thus does Prof. Gavison. All should serve on the Supreme Court
and strengthen it."

Barak said the court's output has not suffered despite the delayed
appointment of three new justices due to Livni's refusal to convene the
judicial appointments committee until Gavison's appointment is assured.
Barak said the court's 12 justices are working harder than ever, however, he
warned that this could not continue indefinitely.

Barak defended Justice Mishael Cheshin's lenience regarding the proceedings
to remove Judge Hila Cohen, convicted by a disciplinary court for falsifying
court minutes, calling the criticism of the court "completely unjustified."

He also termed "groundless" charges that the court's policy on the
disengagement was discriminatory. "The courts acted in the disengagement
matter with decency and objectivity," he said. "The attacks on us are the
result of lack of knowledge and lack of understanding."