For this reason, the court may refrain from intervening if a petition is filed against a municipality that enacted a bylaw prohibiting the sale of pigs in all areas of the city, nor will it intervene if a petition is filed against another municipality that permitted the sale of pig in all areas of that city.
The consistent point in these decisions stems from the role of the court. His role is not to decide on the merits of the matter, but, in the absence of a defect in the municipality's decision, to allow a city to decide according to its own wishes.
The triple combination of the rule of observance of the laws regarding a law that was enacted prior to the enactment of the Basic Laws, the broad discretion granted to each city under the Enabling Law, and the subject of legislation that is given to polar and legitimate debates, omits the ground under the appellants' reservations, which is mainly only against the result reached by the Ashkelon Municipality.
The task of judging in such a case is to ensure that the decision process is done as it should be done. The test is not in the result, but in the way. If the court reaches the conclusion that there was no defect in the process that is the subject of the hearing before it, it should not intervene and must watch from the sidelines. In these circumstances, there is no need for him to establish his position that as a court, when he has completed his work, he has no position.
Time will tell whether there will be changes in the law and its implementation or not. Changes can occur in both directions and, as always, in unexpected ways. The municipality is authorized to prohibit and permit, to enact a law and to change it. The future is before us, but it does not stand before this court. The decision will be given today, as any decision, on the merits of the legal matter.
In my opinion, this is the delicate and desirable tissue.
Ihave found grounds in constitutional law or criminal law to accept the appeal that was filed.
My opinion is that the appeal should be dismissed.