My opinion about the the attempt at reform in Israel is mainly based on my little knowledge about the Constitution of the USA in which James Madison and the other founding fathers made sure that no branch of government would be totally independent of the people. So judges could not appoint themselves;--they needed to go through people that had been elected by the people. That is why in the US, there is no such thing as a judge appointing his underlings. So I think judicial reform was quite in order in Israel. Judges appointing themselves to me seems like straight tyranny. And all the more so that now that same Israeli Supreme Court has voted itself the right to annul any law they do not like [for not being constitutional when there is no constitution!], and to also remove any member of parliament that they do not like,-- including the prime minister. Even in Rome where the Senate and most public positions could be held only by the Patrician class, still no public office (including judges) could be held without a vote from the people of Rome. [I mean physical voting in Rome itself.] [Thus the signature of Rome was SQPR. The Senate and the People of Rome.] There is a lesson from this that extends beyond just the confines of Rome or the USA.
