On Thursday morning, minutes after the Knesset plenum passed a bill to change the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee, the Yesh Atid party and Movement for Quality Government in Israel filed appeals with the Supreme Court, demanding an urgent hearing to cancel the law.
However, the submission of the appeals has roused criticism among journalists questioning why an urgent Supreme Court hearing is necessary at all, when the law will only take effect at the start of the next Knesset session - i.e., after the next elections. This criticism gained even more support due to the opposition's promise to simply cancel the law if they form the next government.
Journalist Avishai Grinzaig wrote: "A law which takes effect only from the next Knesset, but is appealed a minute after it is legislated, as if it were a bun hot out of the oven in the hours after Passover ends - and then they ask the Supreme Court to hold an urgent hearing? This 'race to the bottom' method is breaking records for hilarity. You want to appeal? Appeal. But why embarrass yourselves?"
"I would reject the appeal outright for it being an early appeal, to see if the law will remain or be canceled in the next Knesset. Especially in light of the Yesh Atid party's statement (and the party itself appealed) promising to cancel the law immediately at the start of the next Knesset."
Journalist Yanir Cozin also expressed doubts about the newly-submitted appeals: "I understand the opposition's conditioned reflex to appeal to the Supreme Court against laws that the coalition passes, but we need to say the truth: The implementation of the law to change the Judicial Selection Committee was set only for the next Knesset, meaning it will not take effect immediately in this Knesset."
"Even the opposition leaders in their joint announcement said, 'In the next government, we will ensure that the law to change the Judicial Selection Committee will be canceled.' And then in a Yesh Atid announcement immediately afterwards, they said, 'We have appealed to the Supreme Court against the law.'
"Maybe they should concentrate on achieving the goal in the first announcement? Convincing the nation to choose them in the next elections, forming a government, and cancelling the law instead of running to appeal to the Supreme Court?"