If it happens, it would be in the next few days. I will resolve to NA if some other outcome happens which is not a clear yes or no within a few days, or at max up to the deadline.
EDIT - It is now believed to be decided sometime in September. So I am extending the deadline.
EDIT 2 - it doesnt seem like the supreme court will come to an agreement before Oct 1, so I extended the deadline.
1,000
3.00I resolved to NA, as I couldnt figure out how to extend the deadline further after the deadline passed. Currently, I dont know when we would expect a clear yes or no answer (due to the war), so NA seems to be an appropriate resolution. I wont resolve NO since a decision has not been reached yet.
@YairNeumann They definitely don't like the law, but they stated many times that a high standard is needed to strike down the law.
The legal advisor to the government issued her opinion, and she strongly supports overturning the law
https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/law/2023-09-03/ty-article/.premium/0000018a-5ab8-d845-adfe-faf88d2f0000?utm_source=App_Share&utm_medium=Android_Native&utm_campaign=Share
its like 50-50 on Metaculus
https://www.metaculus.com/questions/18192/israel-reasonableness-law-upheld/
ืืืจืื ืืื - ืืจืืฉืื ื ืืืืกืืืจืื: 15 ืฉืืคืื ืขืืืื ืืืื ื ืืืืืื ืขืืืช ืืกืืืจืืช
ืื"ืฅ ืืืื ืืขืชืืจืืช ืขื ืืืืง ืืืืืื ืขืืืช ืืกืืืจืืช ื-12 ืืกืคืืืืจ, ืืืืคื ืชืงืืืื ืื ืืืืืช ืื ืฉืืคืื ืืขืืืื. ืืืืืจ ืืืืง ืืจืืฉืื ืืืื ืกืขืืคื ืืืืคืื ืืืฉืคืืืช ืฉืืืืข ืืคืชืื ืฉื ืืืช ืืืฉืคื ืืืจืืฉืืื
https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/syjzsvbo3
@YonatanCale It would be a huge spit in the face of the government and their voter base for whom the clause cancelation was a show of strength and not bowing down to the protest of unlelected army elites.
Right now some in the government are publicly saying they will not continue with the reforms without bipartisan agreement or softening of the reform. Canceling the passed law would prove the radicals in the government right, piss off their voter base, further damage the social fabric and make the government more likely to pass the actually dangerous laws. All for 0 benefit!
I believe the supreme court will not strike down the clause, because there is no constitutional precedence to do so, and wouldn't want to start a constitutional crisis over the clause itself, but rather save the option of a constitutional crisis for other, more aggressive parts of the reform (e.g. the override clause)