"DIGNIFIED HUMAN EXISTENCE"

More on the Israeli Supreme Court: the rightward block of the Knesset approved a "rebuke" of the Israeli Supreme Court yesterday, according to the Jerusalem Post. The text, as reported by the paper:

We consider with grave concern the incursion of the High Court of Justice upon the authority of the executive branch, and reject attempts to delegitimize criticism directed at judiciary decisions.

For the context, see this Ha'aretz article (also linked below), as well as this analysis of the Court's January 5th recent decision requiring the government to develop specific standards for what counts as "dignified human existence." This term is significant because it is found in Israel's Basic Law, although, as with other such general statements in constitutions around the world (such as India; think also of our Preamble), it's not clear what the phrase means. Is it a general, exhortatory goal that is not judicially enforceable, but nonetheless stands for basic, presumably shared values? Or is it an authoritative command for which the judiciary should bear responsibility? According to the article by Segal, Israeli Supreme Court president Ahron Barak has been pushing the Court in the direction of enforcing welfare rights that he sees as anchored in the Basic Law, and the Knesset is pushing back.

I don't know enough about Israeli constitutional law or recent political history to make any informed comments here; moreover, there are reasons to be suspicious of judicial assertions of exclusive interpretive authority. If there is a genuine disagreement between the Knesset and the Court on what constitutes a "dignified human existence," who will assert ultimate authority is probably a question of power -- who can mobilize more resources. Regardless of which arguments might persuade me, the fact that the Court is putting the issue on the agenda is still a good thing. More public dialogue about basic, presumably shared principles, is (often) a feature of a healthy democracy. The welfare rights issue can be intractable, to be sure, and dialogue is not an end in itself. Nonetheless, specific questions need to be decided (a likely issue before the Court, apparently, involves the cutting of welfare benefits), and if the Court helps ensure an appropriately serious approach to the dispute by reminding other participants about the basic law, that's good.