Contested, curbs, divisive, weakening, controversial, limits, and strips were some of the descriptive terms used to describe the law passed in Israel concerning the powers of the Supreme Court. Unless you took the time to learn what the law does, you would have a completely different viewpoint if you only saw the CNN headline which used strips.
What the law did was to cancel the reasonableness clause, which allowed Israel's Supreme Court to block government appointments and decisions by elected officials that it deemed to be unreasonable and not in the public interest.
The reasonableness clause gave the Supreme Court of Israel dictatorial power. If the members of the court deemed what the elected officials did to be unreasonable and not in the public interest, it could block what the elected officials did. It made the Supreme Court the final arbiter on all issues.
The people would again, based on the new law, have a direct influence on their government. If the people deemed what the elected officials did to be unreasonable or not in the public interest, they could elect different people.
Terms like reasonable and in the public interest are vague. This is much like the collectivists, the Democrats of the United States, claiming that we must always choose what is deemed to be for “the greater good.” Dictatorial adherents cherish such vague criteria as reasonable and in the public interest, and for the greater good.
You must decide if the new law curbs, weakens, limits, or strips the Supreme Court. You must decide if the new law enhances the power of the people. That the new law is contested, divisive, and controversial seems to be without question. May wise and discerning minds, I would say minds that favor individual liberty and freedom over the tyranny of government, decide. I would use that same criteria for laws passed in the United States. And what say you????
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.