13 ms·

This law has existed in different variations since 2002. This law is often challenged at Israel's Supreme Court, but the racist parties usually can get a majori

This law has existed in different variations since 2002. This law is often challenged at Israel's Supreme Court, but the racist parties usually can get a majority vote in the Parliament to "tweak it" every time to get a few more months/years out of it before getting challenged again. Similarly to how several US states change abortion/voting/gun laws all the time, trying to see if they can beat SCOTUS. This law, by the way, is unconstitutional* for more reasons than just the race-based discrimination. It defines different criteria for "permitted spouse" by gender, and has exceptions for specific religions (e.g. Druze). *Israel doesn't really have a constitution, but there are certain "core laws" that the Supreme Court decided in the '90s that it can use as a basis to strike down other laws passed by the Parliament.

nebula8804 5y ago
>This law has existed in different variations since 2002. This law is often challenged at Israel's Supreme Court, but the racist parties usually can get a majority vote in the Parliament to "tweak it" every time to get a few more months/years out of it before getting challenged again. This is the same exact tactic used by the Anti-BDS proponents in the US. On the face of it the anti-BDS laws enacted in 35 states are blatantly unconstitutional. There are two issues that have allowed them to stick around. First is the fact that it is much easier to pass a new law (however unconstitutional) than to repeal it and secondly as you alluded to, the tricks that are employed after the law is struck down is to tweak and alter the law to keep it on the books for a bit longer until the second version gets challenged. For example in Abby Martin v. the State of Georgia the original law stated that for any contract up to 1,000$ there is an exemption to the law. While she won the ruling, the end result became that the law was amended to raise the certification exemption from $1,000 to $100,000. I am not sure if they are appealing the original ruling.

nebula8804 5y ago

>This law has existed in different variations since 2002. This law is often challenged at Israel's Supreme Court, but the racist parties usually can get a majority vote in the Parliament to "tweak it" every time to get a few more months/years out of it before getting challenged again. This is the same exact tactic used by the Anti-BDS proponents in the US. On the face of it the anti-BDS laws enacted in 35 states are blatantly unconstitutional. There are two issues that have allowed them to stick around. First is the fact that it is much easier to pass a new law (however unconstitutional) than to repeal it and secondly as you alluded to, the tricks that are employed after the law is struck down is to tweak and alter the law to keep it on the books for a bit longer until the second version gets challenged. For example in Abby Martin v. the State of Georgia the original law stated that for any contract up to 1,000$ there is an exemption to the law. While she won the ruling, the end result became that the law was amended to raise the certification exemption from $1,000 to $100,000. I am not sure if they are appealing the original ruling.