Judges nominated to constitutional courts under one political coalition would hold a view reflecting that coalition’s median position. When cabinet instability is system characteristic then judges nominated to the constitutional court would be nominated bringing in different policy preferences to court and judicial review, increasing the fragmentation in court. Assuming appeals against the government try to repeal a status-quo a fragmented court would overall would not be able to accept appeals, accepted appeals would coincide with basic issues which would coincide with the lowest common denominator in court. We observe the Israeli case revealing activist judicial review based on judges’ individual preferences within Israel’s high court of justice functioning between the years 1995-2015. Judges usually reject appeals against the government. The appeals they accept coincide with the Israeli median voter’s preferences, where acceptance raises dissent within the court.
