Here is an explanation from a Jewish publication:
Israel, famously, is a nation without a constitution. ...The Israel parliament has unanimous voted for some modest reforms, and hysterical protesters are trying to shut down the govt. What goes?
The judicial revolution began in the 1980s, when the court unilaterally abolished two key restrictions on its power to hear cases: standing, meaning who is entitled to petition the court, and justiciability, meaning what issues are within the court’s purview. The accepted norms until then — as is still the case today in many countries, including America—were that only someone directly affected by a given executive-branch decision had standing to go to court, and that most political issues were nonjusticiable, meaning the court could not rule on them because they were properly the province of the elected branches of government. The new policy allowed anyone at all, including organizations or individuals who weren’t directly affected by a policy but disliked it, to petition the court on any issue whatsoever. The result, as the revolution’s chief ideologue, former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, famously said, is that today “everything is justiciable.” Virtually every controversial policy question, and a great many trivial ones as well, now reach the court, and the court rules on all of them. (For more on Barak’s motivations for this and subsequent stages of the judicial revolution, see this essay from back in 1998 or this one from 2016.) Rather than merely judging whether policies comply with existing law, the court also asserted that government decisions could be “so unreasonable as to be illegal ” — even if they violated no law.
But rather than merely judging whether policies comply with existing law, the court also asserted that government decisions could be “so unreasonable as to be illegal ” even if they violated no law. This was the second crucial part of the revolution. Reasonability was originally a standard used to protect individual rights by determining whether a given official’s or agency’s handling of a particular case was a reasonable interpretation of their legally mandated authority. But overturning general policies rather than individual decisions on the grounds that they are “unreasonable” was a novel interpretation of this doctrine; courts in other democracies generally confine themselves to determining whether policies violate existing laws or the constitution.
Since then, the court has used this expanded reasonability doctrine to overturn policies on a wide range of issues at the very heart of the government’s responsibilities.
Meanwhile, Jews like US AG Merrick Garland are often lecturing us on democracy and rule of law, while they force they leftist politics on us.
I am coming to the conclusion that most Jews believe that the ideal government is a Communist Politburo.
Judaism teaches leftist authoritarianism. It has no foundational principles. The way they do things is that a bunch of rabbis engage in some heated arguments. When and if they reach a consensus, everyone else is expected to go along with it.
Jorday B Peterson posts a new interview of Gad Saad of Israel. They discuss research connecting leftist authoritarian with malignant narcissism.