When a selection of judges turns out to be a political issue? Is there a connection between court decisions and partisan political pressure to amend the nomination process? With the absence of written constitution and emergence of parliamentary system without checks and balances, the judicial branch was initially regarded as the weakest arm of government in Israel. Selection of judges was considered then to be a-political process, based mainly on professional considerations. The "weakness" of not having formally defined review powers, made it possible for the Court to incrementally increase its influence without being perceived as threatening the other branches of government. The High Court role during the 1980s and early 1990s was crucial in a situation of political stalemate. It helped strengthen democratic tendencies and probably prevented overpoliticization of various spheres of life. However, when the legislature decided to adapt to the new situation and granted the courts powers of limited judicial review, the courts were pushed into the center of political debate. The Israeli judiciary, which enjoyed professional autonomy and was relatively shielded from political interference, is no longer regarded as a neutral arbiter, but rather, as an active actor who plays a role of “veto player” in the political arena. As such, professional practices such as nomination of justices and division of cases between justices have become the focus of political scrutiny, thereby posing a threat to future impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
