When Amit flees confrontation

Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit faced harsh criticism from both sides of the political spectrum following the decision in the case of disqualifying Abu-Shahada's candidacy. Instead of setting a clear precedent through a reasoned ruling, Amit led to urging the candidate to withdraw, while avoiding writing a legal decision that would establish rules for the future. The move sparked a rare consensus of criticism from legal experts on the right and left.

Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit faced harsh criticism from both sides of the political spectrum following the decision he led in the case of disqualifying Abu-Shahada's candidacy. Instead of setting a clear precedent through a reasoned ruling, Amit led to urging the candidate to withdraw from the race, while avoiding writing a legal decision that would establish rules for the future. The move sparked a rare consensus of criticism from legal experts on the right and left. The author claims that the avoidance of writing a reasoned ruling is a scandal, especially given Amit's tendency to insist on principled decisions in other cases, such as the Ronen Bar dismissal affair. The article compares the conduct to Prof. Meni Mautner's analysis of the decline of formalism in Israeli law, and warns that avoiding reasoning marks a shift from rule-based rule of law to rule of outcomes.