Did the California Community Colleges implement anti-racist policies because they believed they resulted in the best pedagogy, or because politicians told them to?
This article doesn't say, but it does appear from other reporting that the community colleges implemented these policies without influence from state politicians.
This is not at all what happened. What actually happened is that the parliament slightly restricted the number of reasons the Supreme Court is allowed to use to overrule decisions of the government. Since Israel has no Constitution (it has some Basic Laws, but they don't cover much) the Supreme Court has been increasingly intervening into politics - including appointments, government decisions, policies, etc. - much more than, for example, US Supreme Court would ever do, and using reasoning like "it doesn't look reasonable" to overrule the actions of the government. Since, remember, there's no Constitution, this essentially gives the Supreme Court infinite power - they could override literally anything the government does, and they didn't need much grounds for it either.
And, let's say, the Court also hasn't been exactly non-partisan lately either (if it reminds you some other country, then you are right, these things can happen anywhere). So, many people were very unhappy with such situation, where a largely self-perpetuating body (the Court controls a lot of appointment process too) has nearly infinite power over the elected officials.
Given that one major party (or rather coalition, but let's not get into the weeds) has lost the elections, but enjoys the power in the Court, and the other has the majority in the parliament, but has their actions constantly blocked by the Court with motivations like "it doesn't look reasonable to us", the inevitable readjustment happens. It does not mean at all the Court - or any courts - lost all ability to review the decisions of the government, far from it. It just means that use of that particular tool - declaring any decision "unreasonable" and be done with it - has been restricted. Of course the side that enjoyed using that tool doesn't like it at all. But the Court still has all the power of review that it had using any other tools - including all the laws previously passed and those Basic Laws that exist. It just moved from "infinite power" to "limited power".
> What actually happened is that the parliament slightly restricted the number of reasons the Supreme Court is allowed to use to overrule decisions of the government.
This seems a bit misleading. There's a lot more to it.
> The Supreme Court can declare Knesset legislation unconstitutional. The reform would permit the Knesset to override such a ruling by reintroducing the legislation and approving it with a majority of Knesset members.
> Levin and the ruling government coalition have stated that the above is the first step in their judicial reform, and that additional steps are planned, including changing the appointment process of legal advisors to government ministries, such that they are appointed and dismissed by the ministers; making their legal advice a recommendation rather than binding on the ministers; and making them subordinate directly to the ministers rather than to the Justice Ministry's professional oversight.
> The coalition is also advancing a number of other bills concerning Israel's judicial system and the balance of powers, including reforms to widen the authority of the Rabbinical Court, allowing them to act as arbitrators in civil matters using religious law, if both parties consent; bills limiting the ability to call for a no-confidence vote and other methods for dissolving a sitting Knesset; bills prohibiting criminal proceedings against sitting Prime Ministers; and bills permitting key public service positions to be positions of trust appointed by politicians rather than professional appointments.
I would seriously advise against using Wikipedia as an ultimate source for politically controversial topics, especially ones concerning fresh ongoing events.
That said, the two last paragraphs is not actually an objection to anything I said, it's just saying "but also they plan to do other bad things". Maybe they do, maybe they don't - it doesn't change the nature of the particular thing they passed, and that's what I was addressing and that's what the comment I was answered was alleging (it said "just removed", not "planning to remove" or "going to remove" - and that's false).
As for the first paragraph (after the link), I suspect what it refers to is part of another bill, and as such it's kind of hard to discuss because these change all the time as part of inter- and intra-coalition wheeling and dealing. I did not find any reference to this provision being part of the law that actually passed, if you have any (non-Wikipedia) reference to it please provide it. On its face, it looks ridiculous - that means to nullify any Supreme Court decision the parliament has to just vote on it twice (and the majority is implied - you can not pass any bill without having majority anyway) - so there's no point to have any court at all. This exaggerated ridiculousness suggests to me something is missing - this is not how it works and even people wanting to somehow establish a dictatorship (which nobody in Israel actually wants, despite what both sides claim - they just want to bend the system towards the party they favor) does not do it by passing a law saying "anything I say twice is the truth". Why then bother with saying it twice anyway - once should be enough? It just doesn't make any sense, all politics aside, so I suspect the real bill, whatever it is, is something different. But, as I said, I haven't read it so I don't know.
> The Knesset advanced a slew of proposals through preliminary readings on Wednesday – most notably the bill to enshrine the judicial override clause, which would permit the Knesset to override Supreme Court decisions by a very slim majority of 61 votes in the 120-seat parliament, effectively revoking its power to strike down unconstitutional laws.
> The law, which passed a preliminary vote, also includes a provision requiring all 15 Supreme Court justices to unanimously support any move to strike down unconstitutional laws, a proposal which critics charge would dramatically reduce the High Court’s ability to check the legislature while also discouraging judges from issuing dissenting opinions. Even after the 15-member court unanimously strikes down a law, the bill allows the Knesset to override the move with a simple majority of 61 votes out of the 120-seat parliament.
Thanks for the link. This is certainly a different bill, and not the one that has been recently passed. As such, it indeed looks quite ridiculous and reaching too far and basically makes Supreme Court completely powerless - because the government controls 61 votes by default, otherwise it falls. But it is not passed yet. If it does pass, then there's a reason to worry that the judicial review has been seriously impacted. But it didn't happen so far. And it looks like it won't ever: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-diplomacy/art...
As such, I suspect that it was just a bargaining move by Netanyahu to introduce something which clearly is going too far, with the full intent to drop it as soon as things get really going, to show he's reasonable and compromising. Maybe so, maybe he did intend to pass it if he can - in any case, I don't think that will happen anymore.
I would mention that there is basically zero separation between executive and legislative powers in Israel (to form the government to need to have majority in Knesset and you get to choose all the ministers). Reducing the power of the only independent branch in this case is highly questionable to say the least
> I would mention that there is basically zero separation between executive and legislative powers in Israel (to form the government to need to have majority in Knesset and you get to choose all the ministers).
That’s standard for the parliamentary system. Israel in that is fundamentally no different from the UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Italy, Germany, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Greece - actually most countries in Europe (where parliamentary systems are the rule and semi-presidential systems such as France or Russia are the exception)
> Reducing the power of the only independent branch in this case is highly questionable to say the least
The UK government has done it before, many times. Most recent example I am aware of is the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022, which stripped from the Courts the power to review the legality of prorogations or dissolutions of Parliament. In English law, this is called an “ouster clause”, and is nothing new - historically significant examples include the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946, and the Foreign Compensation Act 1950. In the US, the same idea is called “jurisdiction-stripping”; a famous example is the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
Just leaving another comment to warn that there is a lot of “don’t believe your eyes and ears” argumentation going on in the other sub threads to this comment.
I’m not sure this is something you can flag comments for, but I don’t think that type of argument, regardless of how eloquently stated, is appropriate for HN.
The amount of taxpayer $$$ that Israel claws from the US in the name of religion was already quite sickening. Now they’re getting that money while simultaneously switching to a totalitarian government.
This is what happens when free speech is not valued and defended throughout our culture. Politics is downstream from culture. When we are OK with, and often encouraging of, private censorship, we shift the Overton window and provide moral cover for politicians and government entities to further consolidate power. This story is a prime example.
People who peddle the argument that the 1st amendment only protects you from government censorship as a basis to invalidate the vigorous defense of free speech ideals in society, are either disingenuous or wildly narrow sighted.
First, private and public censorship are fundamentally different due to power balances. The government is enjoined from censorship except in very carefully defined circumstances. Private entities are allowed to censor except in carefully defined circumstances.
Conflating the two is the thing that shifts the Overton Window.
Free speech doesn't mean that the others have to listen to you and agree with you, it means that you can say it and not have your freedom of movement restricted because of it.
The exact opposite of what many dictators do.
There are no country on earth with "full" free speech because there are always limitations especially regarding threats to the safety of others.
everybody (to a first approximation) supports private censorship. If you come into my house and insult my family or friends, or start in on a racist tirade, I’m kicking you out. Are there people who really wouldn’t do this?
I think when we have the government having regular meetings with major social networks, instructing them who to ban and which topics to exclude from discussion, and when we have the pipeline from foreign security services through the US government to the all major social networks which allow them to ban anybody without as little as cursory review - we are way, way beyond "family and friends" situation here.
The owners of social networks have free speech rights too. They can take others suggestions as to who and what to block and decide for themselves. The constitutional law is settled on this question. I wouldn’t be so quick to infringe that.
"Suggestions". Right. Regular meetings and demands from the government to shut down speech is just mere "suggestions". How stupid you think your target audience is?
It's one thing to politely disagree with others, and it's another to pretend like they are "targeting an audience". Your comment is rude, disingenuous, and doesn't further reasonable discourse and a rethink of your approach would be wise for the benefit of the community.
I don’t have a target audience. I’m just telling you the way it works. As far as I can tell the only place in the US that government is actually threatening private companies over their speech is Florida.
We are facing continued pressure from external stakeholders, including the White House and the press, to remove more Covid-19 vaccine discouraging content.
This is not "suggestion". This is government coercing private business.
It's entirely valid to point at different items on the same trend line, even if they may be at different points along it currently. Florida and Texas may not be hosing down protestors or throwing them in jail, but this is hardly an isolated incident and it certainly does qualify as a "crackdown on free speech" in my opinion, as do the classic extreme examples it's included with.
Perhaps how uncomfortable that is should be something we consider thoughtfully rather than something we point to and immediately try to discount.
https://archive.is/VDNPj